Specter Pro -- Spyware
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Is MBAM is a 100% safe application
Next: Virus? - Many program does not work (iexplorer, controllpanel etc)
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 1 May 2010 21:46 G. Morgan wrote, about keylogging software: > I'm not the only one with admin rights to my PC, I have a girlfriend > (nuf' said?) lol ... If you don't trust her, why does she have an _admin_ account on your computer? Solution: upgrade to Girlfriend 2.0 -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: ~BD~ on 2 May 2010 04:07 FromTheRafters wrote: > "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... [...] >> *What if* ....... ? >> >> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a >> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme >> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done on >> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency. Thank you for responding FTR! :) > That's not very likely, But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*! ******** As I've said elsewhere .......... "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?" > such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt > with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...] Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR! Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user* suspect anything untoward? My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost. Do you dispute this? > I can't think of a legitimate reason, offhand, for surreptitiously > installing spyware. The administrator/owner of a machine can install it > *and* exclude the AV or whatever from alerting someone in userland to > its existence. The reasons for installing /illegitimate/ spyware are manifold but it would be principally to steal money. Cybercrime has risen exponentially since the advent of high-speed Broadband connection - maybe in the past 6 or 7 years in most places. How this has happened is of much interest to me. Perhaps we could discuss anything in this article which which you disagree? http://www.geekstogo.com/2007/10/03/what-is-a-backdoor-trojan/ I was especially interested in this extract:- "Because backdoor trojans have the potential to gain such complete control of a system, and install malicious code that may not be detectable, it�s wise to consider reformatting any system that�s been infected." MAY NOT BE DETECTABLE - Wow! ;-) -- Dave - seeking only the truth
From: FromTheRafters on 2 May 2010 19:50 "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > FromTheRafters wrote: >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > [...] >>> *What if* ....... ? >>> >>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a >>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme >>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done >>> on >>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency. > > Thank you for responding FTR! :) > >> That's not very likely, > > But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*! > ******** > > As I've said elsewhere .......... > > "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone > else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed > on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?" > >> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt >> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...] > > Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR! > > Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed > and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that > they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is > performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user* > suspect anything untoward? Bigger picture: Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time? Malware like that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single source - there are many sources and they change location often. If someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's activities can soon be discovered. So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business. > My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under > the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost. > > Do you dispute this? Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offeding program. [...] > I was especially interested in this extract:- > > "Because backdoor trojans have the potential to gain such complete > control of a system, and install malicious code that may not be > detectable, it�s wise to consider reformatting any system that�s been > infected." > > MAY NOT BE DETECTABLE - Wow! ;-) Not to be confused with being "undetectable". :o) The author is probable talking about what I usually refer to here as "unknowns". Once you discover that you have a backdoor trojan that is known to download and execute various and sundry *other* malicious programs. Various and sundry "may not be detectable" since they are undefined.
From: ~BD~ on 2 May 2010 20:32 FromTheRafters wrote: > "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> FromTheRafters wrote: >>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> [...] >>>> *What if* ....... ? >>>> >>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a >>>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme >>>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done >>>> on >>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency. >> >> Thank you for responding FTR! :) >> >>> That's not very likely, >> >> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*! >> ******** >> >> As I've said elsewhere .......... >> >> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone >> else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed >> on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?" >> >>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt >>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...] >> >> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR! >> >> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed >> and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that >> they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is >> performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user* >> suspect anything untoward? > > Bigger picture: > > Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the > time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time? �You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.� Abraham Lincoln > Malware like > that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the > second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does > eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single > source - there are many sources and they change location often. If > someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's > activities can soon be discovered. > > So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is > insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself > if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would > mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business. OK. Let' use an example. I do not consider Aumha.net to be a business (do you?) Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and all seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which makes random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing untoward, along the lines which I've described, is happening - to ensure that they are *not* compromising the machines of naive 'customers'? >> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under >> the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost. >> >> Do you dispute this? > > Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend > on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offending > program. Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if the user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does not become suspicious in any way. HTH -- Dave
From: JD on 3 May 2010 00:02
~BD~ wrote: > FromTheRafters wrote: >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:8aydnQR6ar0tr0DWnZ2dnUVZ8oKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> FromTheRafters wrote: >>>> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:156dnS2rcsGUg0HWnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> [...] >>>>> *What if* ....... ? >>>>> >>>>> One or more of those 'trusted' malware cleaning forums (or even a >>>>> trusted software programme) could, surely, download such a programme >>>>> onto a user's machine so that, forever afterwards, whatever is done >>>>> on >>>>> that machine may be monitored by an outside agency. >>> >>> Thank you for responding FTR! :) >>> >>>> That's not very likely, >>> >>> But .... *I* believe that it is *possible*! >>> ******** >>> >>> As I've said elsewhere .......... >>> >>> "What a super ruse it would be, eh? - to clear a machine of everyone >>> else's 'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed >>> on the user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?" >>> >>>> such a trojan would soon be discovered and dealt >>>> with - very bad for the 'trusted' source's reputation.[...] >>> >>> Now this is where we seem to have a *real* difference of opinion, FTR! >>> >>> Just *who* would discover such covert malware. With today's high-speed >>> and powerful machines a *user* is highly *unlikely* to discover that >>> they have become part of a botnet! If their /cleaned/ machine is >>> performing *better* that it had in a long while, why would the *user* >>> suspect anything untoward? >> >> Bigger picture: >> >> Remember the quote about how you can fool some of the people some of the >> time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time? > > �You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of > the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all > the time.� Abraham Lincoln > >> Malware like >> that relies on the first part of that quote. It doesn't care about the >> second part because there is no shortage of fools. Such software does >> eventually get discovered, but usually cannot be traced back to a single >> source - there are many sources and they change location often. If >> someone has a *real firewall* then this type of commercial malware's >> activities can soon be discovered. >> >> So asking "who would" is the wrong question - the individual is >> insignificant in comparison to the whole. Instead you must ask yourself >> if *anybody* would discover the hidden function, and what that would >> mean to an otherwise legitimate (contactable) business. > > OK. Let' use an example. > > I do not consider Aumha.net to be a business (do you?) > > Let's say someone goes there for the cleaning of their machine and all > seems to go to plan. Is there *any* company/organisation which makes > random checks on such 'help' sites to ensure that nothing untoward, > along the lines which I've described, is happening - to ensure that they > are *not* compromising the machines of naive 'customers'? > >>> My limited understanding of matters is that once a machine is under >>> the control of a botmaster, all personal control is effectively lost. >>> >>> Do you dispute this? >> >> Yes, but I may be reading it differently than you are. It would depend >> on how much control is still afforded you by the nature of the offending >> program. > > Perhaps you are. I meant that an outside agency may do whatever they > wish - whenever they wish - with the owner of the machine being > completely unaware of the 'intruder'. This may only be achieved if the > user can still carry out whatever he/she wishes to do and does not > become suspicious in any way. > > HTH > boater Dave, You are so full of $hit my monitor stinks when I see your messages. Try a slow boat to anywhere but these newsgroups. OK? -- JD.. |