Win32/RAMNIT.A Anyone?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:51 "Wolf K" <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:l6G6o.163309$iL.123754(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote: > [...] >> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a >> "virus" does not make it >> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please >> do NOT call yourself >> a "professional." >> >> > > > Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use > terminology in their professional lives, words will escape into the > wild, and then all bets are off. That's true, and it is worth mentioning to people when they misuse terminology. It is not really worthwhile to *insist* that the masses use terms correctly. ....but a professional should be professional. > It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage, > "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a > professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of > communication is "Adapt to your audience." I do, and the average Joe may or may not even cause me to just mention that there *is* a difference. A professional should be more receptive to gaining knowledge.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 20:56 "John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:ElF6o.53526$dx7.52083(a)newsfe21.iad... > On 8/4/2010 2:48 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >> "John Slade"<hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:J3j6o.48696$3%3.27633(a)newsfe23.iad... >> >> [...] >> >>> I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do >>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them >>> called "Anti-Virus" software? >> >> Yes, but that is beside the point. > > No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to > just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go > around correcting everyone. ....and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I suppose. Talk about anal.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 21:02 "John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:0oF6o.53527$dx7.4854(a)newsfe21.iad... > On 8/4/2010 4:29 PM, RJK wrote: >> ...same old hair being split again an again :-) >> >> ...when someone dumps a system box in my lap, or pleads down the >> 'phone, he >> or she often suspects that "...there's a virus in it." >> >> :-) >> >> regards, Richard >> >> > > > LOL. The same thing happens to me. Do you think every time a > customer does that I tell them, "It's not a virus! It's a trojan!" It's not worth it. They don't care, and might not even be capable of understanding the difference. > I'll tell them eventually what the malware was that caused the problem > but I'll never be condescending to them like some other > "professionals" out there. That's a good idea, it doesn't pay to alienate customers.
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 21:12 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message news:i3fiov01drs(a)news6.newsguy.com... > Did 'ya hear about the blonde that snorted Sweet 'N Low ? A guy walks into a bar and seats himself at the bar next to a gorgeous brunette. He says "Hey, I got a real funny blonde joke, ya wanna hear it?". The girl next to him says "Sure, but I'm an actress playing a brunette in a play in town, I'm actually a blonde. That big blonde at the end of the bar works here, she is a bouncer. That blonde throwing darts over there is a hand-to-hand combat instructor at the Marine base just outside of town. Do you still want to tell that joke?" Not if I'm going to have to explain it three times!
From: FromTheRafters on 5 Aug 2010 21:30
"John Slade" <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Z1F6o.145$RZ1.109(a)newsfe24.iad... > Terminology is subject to any number of factors. It's perfectly > correct to use "virus" when talking about trojans and worms. It's also > perfectly correct to call all three "bugs". It just matters what the > prevailing thinking is. It's not *right*, but whatcha gonna do - dinner table conversation is different than technical conversation. > Also professionals who actually make software that remove malware > often called their products anti-virus software. Only if they did indeed target viruses. If they couldn't detect at least most existing viruses, they would be laughed out of business. Maybe you would be so kind as to back that claim up with an example? To the best of my knowledge, anti-malware programs that now incorporate an antivirus engine don't bother to change the name to reflect that change. Ad-Aware and The Cleaner have added the ability to detect viruses to their programs IIRC even MBAM has detection for some viruses. Every *AV* program I can think of not only *detect* and *identify* viruses, but also can *remove* them (using a VDL). Some years ago they started to try to cover non-replicating malware as well (might as well, they're already hooked into the system anyway). It's wrongheaded in a way, there are better ways to avoid most non-replicators (the exception being software exploit based malware). It is the worms and viruses that get around otherwise best practices. |