Microsoft Security Essentials
in [Spyware]
|
From: PajaP on 1 Jan 2010 12:40 On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:58:26 -0500, "Daave" <daave(a)example.com> wrote: >PajaP wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:56:45 -0500, "Daave" <daave(a)example.com> wrote: >> >>> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira >>> do not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system >>> afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than >>> anything else. >> >> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed MSE do >> not experience any problems, I would have to say any that do, have a >> user issue more than anything else. > >So much for the >>>> And that ends my discussion on this. You followed up. I answered. >I see that you snipped the rest of my post, too. It's a shame you have >closed your mind to trying determine the real cause of your booting up >problem. If you were to do this, not only you would benefit, but others >would, too. It was quicker to build it. I now have Avast, MSE (resident) and MBAM installed. >I agree that your "discussion" has ended, come to think of it. Your only >remarks now are to simply contradict without using critical thinking >skills. This is no real discussion. No my issue has been, like I said to Lethos. Pot, kettle, Black. Too many people here thinking their view are the correct ones (yes, me too). Also people slating my choice of AV. As soon as it is the other way around people start sulking about it (yes, me too).
From: Dustin Cook on 1 Jan 2010 14:03 "The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in news:hhjp1t$83k$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org: > What part of IT DOES NOT WORK don't you understand? I can download the > exe and run it. I then scan with MBAM and it finds it. What part of IT > DOES NOT WORK don't you understand. What the hell is it protecting? If the protection module let you open the file to install it, then the exe you got isn't one we know. It happens. When you scan and find it with mbam, our hueristics took over. :) the end result is the same tho; the badguy is killed. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Dustin Cook on 1 Jan 2010 14:05 ASCII <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4b3d632c.1499109(a)EDCBIC: > The Real Truth MVP wrote: >> >>They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not >>waste your time. > > Not an issue nor waste of time, just something to play with. > BTW: The [setupxv.exe] manages to find something that's not in my > registry, at least not in the one outside the sandbox. You may want to be running one of the new betas of sandboxie; I turned in a new sample the other day to it's author that is able to escape and delete itself from the sandbox.... heh. for what it's worth. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Leythos on 1 Jan 2010 20:41 In article <7dcsj5dqtqsil74aa6t7j2mclaifli4gv8(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- only.co.uk.invalid says... > > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:06:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >You see to have a nasty streak in your comments, and it's not warranted, > >you might find people would be more willing to discuss things with you > >if you were not showing such a rude side of yourself and your strong > >Pro-MS Bias > > Pot, kettle, Black! > And your obvious Avira bias, nothing else works attitude. At this time, based on all of the products I've tested, only Avira has managed to pass the basic home user compromise issues. For more than a decades I ran businesses on Symantec corporate edition software and had never had one network/system compromised, we had non- managed networks running many other solutions, they never fared as well and we picked up a lot of clients because of our record. We have always had a single computer in a separate DMZ network to download file/misc from the wild and had it compromised in 10 seconds last month - typed in incorrect Microsoft website address and was redirected to a malware site that required no additional clicks/actions to take over the machine. Cleaned the machine (restored a ghost image) and started testing with the latest version of all the major players - only Avira Antivir, even the free version, detected and blocked it from controlling the system. McAfee, MSE, AVG didn't even notice it, so, there you go, that's why I'm currently giving support/praise to Avira products. > >we're not showing an Anti-MS bias, we're relating our > >experience, decades of it, across thousands of PC, across multiple > >products. > > There you go again assuming you are the only one that has decades of > experience and thousands of PCs. And yet you seem to be attacking people for their experience, their real-world experience across more systems that you've claimed to have tested on/with..... Each time someone in group points out one of your flaws you come back with a little different story.... -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Dustin Cook on 2 Jan 2010 03:27
ASCII <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4b3e6e84.1479531(a)EDCBIC: > Dustin Cook wrote: >> >>You may want to be running one of the new betas of sandboxie; > > v3.43.09b > is that recent enough to address your fugitive app? Nope. I got that beta as soon as tzuk released it. The file, IE.exe is still able to escape the sandbox and remove itself from the real hard drive. > Other than a form of self-stealthing, > what else can it do when it escapes, > muck around with the system? No stealthing involved, simply it's demonstrating it's ability to make changes outside of the sandbox environment; ie, deleting itself from a forced folder. > IOW: How much payload cargo can it take with? As I believe this is just a proof of concept version, it doesn't contain any payload; but it very well could use the same trickery to delete other files present on the hard disk, besides itself. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways... |