From: FromTheRafters on 28 May 2010 06:30 "~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:htmsl4$kep$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... [...] > What if MBAM itself was dropping a malware item after cleaning a > machine? > > Who would ever know? *Someone* would soon discover it - we covered this possibility already in a previous discussion. [...]
From: ~BD~ on 28 May 2010 13:05 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message news:hto5vv$pod$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... | "~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message | news:htmsl4$kep$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... | | [...] | | > What if MBAM itself was dropping a malware item after cleaning a | > machine? | > | > Who would ever know? | | *Someone* would soon discover it - we covered this possibility already | in a previous discussion. | | [...] Perhaps you are right ........... perhaps not! ;-) I'd really like to know just *who* in the anti-malware community has actually carried out such a check and where a 'clean bill of health' has been posted for inspection. Has such an independent check been carried out? Maybe Malwarebytes itself should commission an independent check by a reputable organisation (how about Sophos?) and have the results posted on the 'net to which anyone might refer if concerned about the organisation's integrity.
From: Dustin Cook on 28 May 2010 18:04 "~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:htot5d$hpj$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message > news:hto5vv$pod$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >| "~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >| news:htmsl4$kep$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >| >| [...] >| >| > What if MBAM itself was dropping a malware item after cleaning a >| > machine? >| > >| > Who would ever know? >| >| *Someone* would soon discover it - we covered this possibility already >| in a previous discussion. >| >| [...] > > Perhaps you are right ........... perhaps not! ;-) > > I'd really like to know just *who* in the anti-malware community has > actually carried out such a check and where a 'clean bill of health' BD, you seem to be the only person voicing that he may not trust the program. In that event, perhaps you yourself should pay to have an independent lab do the work you so desperatly want done. On your dime, as I see no reason for malwarebytes to spend unneccessary funds to prove what everyone else already knows; it's a safe and reliable program. -- Are you a former BBSer? Want to go back in time to the old days of ANSI and Renegade? Fire up telnet and go here then: ttb.slyip.com
From: George Orwell on 28 May 2010 20:09 "~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:htot5d$hpj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > Maybe Malwarebytes itself should commission an independent check by a > reputable organisation (how about Sophos?) and have the results posted > on the 'net to which anyone might refer if concerned about the > organisation's integrity. You get away with saying whatever you like about Dustin Cook because he doesn't have the financial resources to pursue UK High Court action, but if your solicitor doesn't warn you that you're walking on dangerous ground when you post defamatory innuendos against corporations with big bank balances then you need to find a better solicitor. Here's some serious free professional legal advice David: "Keep your garrulous trap shut before one of the anti-malware vendors you libel takes away everything you own." Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it
From: Wolf K on 31 May 2010 08:33
On 25/05/2010 19:42, Doug R wrote: > Thanks WolfK but I've tried all those options. Every place where it's > conceivable to turn on System Restore is grayed out and I get the > message "System Restore has been turned off by your administrato". Is > there anything I can do to turn it back on? > Only by editing the registry, and I don't have enough expertise to tell you how. I hope someone else does/has given advice. wolf k. (been away for a few days gallivanting on Toronto.) |