Exe File Information
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: The real Chrome threat to Firefox
Next: If You Wonder
From: Shadow on 21 Jun 2010 11:45 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:56:36 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: >Geez...for this one, use universal extractor with Wise and the x switch >in a sandbox and check out all the files. Too simple. I downloaded under linux. Opened it in archive manager. The exe that determines the processes in memory was clean. The updater file scored a 20/41 in virustotal, it sends far too much information, and is hacker-encrypted. Now why would I heavily encrypt an exe file, if all it does is send the version I'm using, and download updates (which should be OFF by default) nothing more ? I have no idea if/how the program runs under windows. Just delete the update exe file, you should be fine. []'s
From: za kAT on 21 Jun 2010 18:40 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:03:42 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in news:hvna6o$d8l$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > >> The sensible thing is just leave a warning, and send a report to the >> developer, and let them sort it out. Job done. >> > > This is simply stupid asking the fox to guard the chicken house. I didn't > need to leave a warning because I already knew the program was clean. I've decided to disassemble the human genome. It gotta be easier than trying to follow your train of thought. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: idle on 21 Jun 2010 18:49 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:03:42 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote in alt.comp.freeware: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in news:hvna6o$d8l$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: > >> The sensible thing is just leave a warning, and send a report to the >> developer, and let them sort it out. Job done. >> > > This is simply stupid asking the fox to guard the chicken house. I didn't > need to leave a warning because I already knew the program was clean. Yes you did need to note the warning. Every responsible vendor notifies when their product pops one out. If they don't, then that's stoopid. My guess. You didn't even know about the warning. You ran it in the sandbox, then posted. -- that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
From: za kAT on 21 Jun 2010 21:06 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in > news:hvopo6$c0g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:03:42 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in >>> news:hvna6o$d8l$1 @news.eternal-september.org: >>> >>>> The sensible thing is just leave a warning, and send a report to the >>>> developer, and let them sort it out. Job done. >>>> >>> >>> This is simply stupid asking the fox to guard the chicken house. I >>> didn't need to leave a warning because I already knew the program was >>> clean. >> >> I've decided to disassemble the human genome. It gotta be easier than >> trying to follow your train of thought. >> > > I know, it's far too logical for you. > > If they are intentionally providing malware, the developer sure ain't > gonna tell you that. The only answer from them is no, which is useless > information. Whaaat!! I'm not interested in what the developer tells me. He/she has to sort it out with the anti virus vendors. I'm interested in what they tell me. I know, it's far too logical for you. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: za kAT on 22 Jun 2010 04:52
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:24:57 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in > news:hvp29t$9tt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in >>> news:hvopo6$c0g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >>> >>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:03:42 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>>> >>>>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in >>>>> news:hvna6o$d8l$1 @news.eternal-september.org: >>>>> >>>>>> The sensible thing is just leave a warning, and send a report to >>>>>> the developer, and let them sort it out. Job done. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is simply stupid asking the fox to guard the chicken house. I >>>>> didn't need to leave a warning because I already knew the program >>>>> was clean. >>>> >>>> I've decided to disassemble the human genome. It gotta be easier >>>> than trying to follow your train of thought. >>>> >>> >>> I know, it's far too logical for you. >>> >>> If they are intentionally providing malware, the developer sure ain't >>> gonna tell you that. The only answer from them is no, which is >>> useless information. >> >> Whaaat!! I'm not interested in what the developer tells me. >> >> He/she has to sort it out with the anti virus vendors. I'm interested >> in what they tell me. >> >> I know, it's far too logical for you. >> > > LOL...you can't keep your story straight: > > "The sensible thing is just leave a warning, and send a report to the > developer, and let them sort it out. Job done." > > That gets you absolutely nowhere. Figure out for yourself if malware is > present. Jumpin Jeehosefats...you sure are dense. I realise /you/ believe you are as well equipped as teams of experts within anti malware companies, but you aren't. I have done the above on a couple of occasions. The developers sorted it out with the AV companies, and then told me when they had done so. Developers want you to report this kind of thing you dumbfuck. I see little difference between that, and reporting bugs, which I often do, and quite often work with the developers when they require more information. This is normal procedure. It's abnormal to go off, and *fix* it yourself. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration! |