Very Interesting video - worth a watch

[Bear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail

[Hortense Tubman]

This is a sporgery by Pooh the Cat.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA028D21659132be...@130.225.254.104:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail
>

Interesting in what way Bear? This guy is boring me to tears. I could make
a few comments on things I disagree with, but.. I'd just be repeating
myself and the comments already left for him. Comodo AV is junk, imo.

Multiple DNS servers? WTF!?!

Here we go:

"I tired using it once, I could not take it anymore, I had to uninstall
it. Just the FP from the web scanner was driving me to the point it
madness, it kept? blocking tons of sites. "

So he's basically like you... That's his comment.

How does this help people with malware issues Bear? Load em up, watch
systems without the hardware slow to a crawl, users get pissed, uninstall
this and that...Seems counter productive.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA028D21659132be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail
>>
> Interesting in what way Bear? This guy is boring me to tears.

Ditto ;-)

It's not like he's taking from MDL a Blackhole URL and deobfuscating the
Javascript and showing how to obtain the SWF, PDF and Java exploits and the
subsequent payload(s).

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02A6A8A8C3D1HHI2948AJD832@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA028D21659132be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail
>>
>
> Interesting in what way Bear? This guy is boring me to tears. I could
> make a few comments on things I disagree with, but.. I'd just be
> repeating myself and the comments already left for him. Comodo AV is
> junk, imo.
>
> Multiple DNS servers? WTF!?!
>
> Here we go:
>
> "I tired using it once, I could not take it anymore, I had to
> uninstall it. Just the FP from the web scanner was driving me to the
> point it madness, it kept? blocking tons of sites. "
>
> So he's basically like you... That's his comment.
>
> How does this help people with malware issues Bear? Load em up, watch
> systems without the hardware slow to a crawl, users get pissed,
> uninstall this and that...Seems counter productive.
>
>

I'm not that keen on Comodo Internet Security but Norton's DNS servers
are good. So is AVG LinkScanner. Also Comodo Cleaning Essentials with
Kill Switch and Autoruns is very good.

I've never been one to profess loading a machine up with malware tools
as can be seen from my recommendations and comments on my website,
however a few good essential tools are the smart right thing to do.

I do not like the current version of avast! I do not like AVG. I would
rather use MS Security Essentials with Immunet on top of that than
either of those. However, I always go back to PandaCloud Beta and either
Norton or Google DNS which seems to work well enough.

You know my philosophy...keep it simple, keep it light, and make sure
you can quickly recover if anything happens.

If you load up your machine to a crawl with tools, you still aren't
guaranteed protection, so why bother and suffer. Safe Hex is fine, but I
go many places and download from many unknown sites searching for
programs that might be good. If I run into a problem, which I haven't,
well...it actually really isn't a problem.

As for Languy99, he is a savvy tech and I haven't met too many techs who
agree with each other so your opinion is just that. The 'suite' he puts
together works very well and is very light on system resources. Wheter
you agree with him or not, his videos are very informative from various
aspects.

[Bear]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:PcOdnVNhn4vag-bS...@giganews.com:

> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA028D21659132be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail
>>>
>> Interesting in what way Bear? This guy is boring me to tears.
>
> Ditto ;-)
>
> It's not like he's taking from MDL a Blackhole URL and deobfuscating
> the Javascript and showing how to obtain the SWF, PDF and Java
> exploits and the subsequent payload(s).
>

His videos target average users and provides very informative information
about various tools. I don't see you providing informative narratives for
folks.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02AC0B37940Abe...@130.225.254.104:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:PcOdnVNhn4vag-bS...@giganews.com:
>
>> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA028D21659132be...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEQp4Uovf8&feature=uploademail
>>>>
>>> Interesting in what way Bear? This guy is boring me to tears.
>>
>> Ditto ;-)
>>
>> It's not like he's taking from MDL a Blackhole URL and deobfuscating
>> the Javascript and showing how to obtain the SWF, PDF and Java
>> exploits and the subsequent payload(s).
>>
>
> His videos target average users and provides very informative
> information about various tools. I don't see you providing
> informative narratives for folks.

I don't maintain a youtube channel, nor a facebook, myspace, twitter,
(insert your favorite social site here)... So no, You won't see me
providing an informative narrative of anything. I don't think it would
be a good idea for me to provide a video of disecting malware. One wrong
move, poof; damn thing gets loose and I have pissed off users to deal
with. Not to mention the possible problems from the antimalware
community for showing users how to do dangerous or otherwise, unsafe
things... Hell, I couldn't do much worse if I posted how to troubleshoot
the electrical on your microwave. Many have, it's not difficult to work
on in most cases, but it can kill you dead should you touch the wrong
components.. So, for safety, somebody else can take the risk.. It won't
be me.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02ADD9D7292FHHI2948AJD832@no:

yeah, I don't suppose many people are interested in dissecting
malware..including myself. Now preventing as much as possible and
recovering easily is a different story.

[FromTheRafters]

Quite a few actually, especially in these computer security related
groups. Giving an antimalware program the ability to detect some kinds
of malware often involves having to have someone do the work of
dissecting that malware.

> Now preventing as much as possible and
> recovering easily is a different story.

Actually, that's two stories, each with a different plot and cast of
characters.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlhagd$uns$1...@dont-email.me:

Well, have at it. I'm not interested in anything but keeping them out or
recovering from them...which is what most people care about. This is not
a malware dissection group. It is an anti-virus group as in preventing
and as not in dissecting.

>
>> Now preventing as much as possible and
>> recovering easily is a different story.
>
> Actually, that's two stories, each with a different plot and cast of
> characters.
>
>

Both are necessary and go hand in hand.

[Dustin]

Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CA5B255DEEbe...@130.225.254.104:

> Well I'm not interested in it. Up and down...all around.

Then why did you post this youtube garbage?

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C7A77DCF67HHI2948AJD832@no:

> Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CA5B255DEEbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Well I'm not interested in it. Up and down...all around.
>
> Then why did you post this youtube garbage?
>
>
>

Pooh didn't post it, I did. You can't tell the difference between the
forger and me? I thought you were an expert?

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C8C056ED31be...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C7A77DCF67HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02CA5B255DEEbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> Well I'm not interested in it. Up and down...all around.
>>
>> Then why did you post this youtube garbage?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Pooh didn't post it, I did. You can't tell the difference between the
> forger and me? I thought you were an expert?

Bear,

I think you resort to using forger whenever someone asks you a question
you can't readily answer. I have no way of really knowing if you aren't
posting under both servers. Only your word (hah!) that it's not you.

In any event, they aren't forgeries as the header information doesn't
match. It's just two people posting using the same username Bear. Maybe,
two people.

That person expressed they had no interest disecting malware,
incidently,you expressed the same opinion here:

Message-ID: <XnsA02B32A92B47Fbe...@130.225.254.104>

yeah, I don't suppose many people are interested in dissecting

malware..including myself. Now preventing as much as possible and

recovering easily is a different story.

So my question still stands. Why did you post a youtube video link in
this newsgroup? It's junk. The only way it could possibly qualify under
antivirus is because he mentions using one. Otherwise... Junk.

Neither Bear has interest in disect or serious discussion of ANTIVIRUS
(as opposed to malware) and an image isn't really a good way to recover
from a virus. Some viruses have imaging users in mind... lol.

[Peter Foldes]

"Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA02CE40A48DBFHHI2948AJD832@no...

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C8C056ED31be...@130.225.254.104

> I think you resort to using forger whenever someone asks you a question
> you can't readily answer. I have no way of really knowing if you aren't
> posting under both servers. Only your word (hah!) that it's not you.

100% bang on

JS

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Dustin wrote:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> Pooh didn't post it, I did. You can't tell the difference between the
>> forger and me? I thought you were an expert?
>
> Bear,
>
> I think you resort to using forger whenever someone asks you a question
> you can't readily answer. I have no way of really knowing if you aren't
> posting under both servers. Only your word (hah!) that it's not you.
>
> In any event, they aren't forgeries as the header information doesn't
> match. It's just two people posting using the same username Bear. Maybe,
> two people.

It is him, and not a forger. User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
He's just using two NNTP accounts.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CE40A48DBFHHI2948AJD832@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C8C056ED31be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C7A77DCF67HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02CA5B255DEEbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> Well I'm not interested in it. Up and down...all around.
>>>
>>> Then why did you post this youtube garbage?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Pooh didn't post it, I did. You can't tell the difference between the
>> forger and me? I thought you were an expert?
>
> Bear,
>
> I think you resort to using forger whenever someone asks you a
question
> you can't readily answer. I have no way of really knowing if you
aren't
> posting under both servers. Only your word (hah!) that it's not you.

Think all you want. You would still be wrong...and you do know it.

>
> In any event, they aren't forgeries as the header information doesn't
> match. It's just two people posting using the same username Bear.
Maybe,
> two people.

I don't really care. It's flattering in many ways.

>
> That person expressed they had no interest disecting malware,
> incidently,you expressed the same opinion here:

No cite necessary...I have no interest in dissecting malware.

>
> Message-ID: <XnsA02B32A92B47Fbe...@130.225.254.104>
>
> yeah, I don't suppose many people are interested in dissecting
> malware..including myself. Now preventing as much as possible and
> recovering easily is a different story.

I agree.

>
> So my question still stands. Why did you post a youtube video link in
> this newsgroup? It's junk. The only way it could possibly qualify
under
> antivirus is because he mentions using one. Otherwise... Junk.

I disagree.

>
> Neither Bear has interest in disect or serious discussion of ANTIVIRUS
> (as opposed to malware) and an image isn't really a good way to
recover
> from a virus. Some viruses have imaging users in mind... lol.
>

I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker, well I
might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CF3005635Bbe...@130.225.254.104:

> I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
> reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
> embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker, well I
> might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.

By the time you realize you have this style of virus, your images already
contain it as well. It's known as a slow infector and for very good
reason. If you have a drive split into multiple partitions and you dont
restore a clean mbr, you run the risk of a virus maintaining it's presence
and still placing you right back to square one. Images are primarily for
hardware failure and known workstation state integrity.

The idea was never a silver bullet to a virus issue. Sometimes,
inexperienced users do mistake it for a cure-all tho. Backups are an
excellent thing to be doing, but the way in which you pass them off just
isn't honest.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D7D253622DHHI2948AJD832@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CF3005635Bbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>
>> I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
>> reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
>> embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker, well
>> I might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.
>
> By the time you realize you have this style of virus, your images
> already contain it as well. It's known as a slow infector and for very
> good reason. If you have a drive split into multiple partitions and
> you dont restore a clean mbr, you run the risk of a virus maintaining
> it's presence and still placing you right back to square one. Images
> are primarily for hardware failure and known workstation state
> integrity.

My imaging plan takes care of that nicely thank you very much :)

>
> The idea was never a silver bullet to a virus issue. Sometimes,
> inexperienced users do mistake it for a cure-all tho. Backups are an
> excellent thing to be doing, but the way in which you pass them off
> just isn't honest.
>

I disagree...the plan is as solid as it gets.

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin wrote:
> Bear<bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CF3005635Bbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>
>> I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
>> reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
>> embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker, well I
>> might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.
>
> By the time you realize you have this style of virus, your images already
> contain it as well.

His scheme, as laid out, does not allow this to happen. He uses a
previous clean image to get the machine to the point where it can
install the latest cumulative updates.

It does seem like a lot of work doing that when images are not the right
tool to battle malware. For the type of disaster recovery images *do*
address - there's no need to avoid slipstreaming.

> It's known as a slow infector and for very good
> reason. If you have a drive split into multiple partitions and you dont
> restore a clean mbr, you run the risk of a virus maintaining it's presence
> and still placing you right back to square one. Images are primarily for
> hardware failure and known workstation state integrity.
>
> The idea was never a silver bullet to a virus issue. Sometimes,
> inexperienced users do mistake it for a cure-all tho.

And, it doesn't help matters when Bear keeps presenting it as such.

> Backups are an
> excellent thing to be doing, but the way in which you pass them off just
> isn't honest.

Yep, he shouldn't even mention malware in that context.

[Dustin]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlniud$tdh$1...@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
>> Bear<bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02CF3005635Bbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>
>>> I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
>>> reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
>>> embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker,
>>> well I might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.
>>
>> By the time you realize you have this style of virus, your images
>> already contain it as well.
>
> His scheme, as laid out, does not allow this to happen. He uses a
> previous clean image to get the machine to the point where it can
> install the latest cumulative updates.

I'm not sure I'd credit him as the author... Possible, but not entirely
likely. The slow infector relies on it not being detected for sometime,
so that it can slowly work it's way into your backup history. As it's
unknown at that point, it's a safe bet he'd include it in a supposedly
"clean" image-short of install from clean media on known clean HD and no
3rd party apps. In reality this wouldn't work anymore due to the rapid
rate in which samples are passed around and new definitions are posted
to deal with them.

In the past tho, the slow infector did have these backup systems in mind
and intended to take advantage of the process.

> It does seem like a lot of work doing that when images are not the
> right tool to battle malware. For the type of disaster recovery
> images *do* address - there's no need to avoid slipstreaming.

Agreed.

> And, it doesn't help matters when Bear keeps presenting it as such.

Based on his posts recently, he seems to behold some sort of grudge
against techie types. Perhaps he feels they rip people off. He feels his
plan puts techies out of business.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlniud$tdh$1...@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
>> Bear<bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02CF3005635Bbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>
>>> I disagree. A virus can have imaging in mind all it wants...when I
>>> reload an image ... the virus is gone. If it's in the firmware or
>>> embedded on the motherboard somewhere or hiding in the speaker, well
>>> I might call for your help. Don't hold your breath.
>>
>> By the time you realize you have this style of virus, your images
>> already contain it as well.
>
> His scheme, as laid out, does not allow this to happen. He uses a
> previous clean image to get the machine to the point where it can
> install the latest cumulative updates.
>
> It does seem like a lot of work doing that when images are not the
> right tool to battle malware. For the type of disaster recovery images
> *do* address - there's no need to avoid slipstreaming.

It's not a lot of work at all. If I'm going to make an image, I do it
when I take a break or eat lunch or go to bed or whatever...and it
actually only takes an average of about 20 minutes for my system anyway.

Restoring an image, well the same thing applies. It's a very simple
thing to do.

>
>> It's known as a slow infector and for very good
>> reason. If you have a drive split into multiple partitions and you
>> dont restore a clean mbr, you run the risk of a virus maintaining
>> it's presence and still placing you right back to square one. Images
>> are primarily for hardware failure and known workstation state
>> integrity.
>>
>> The idea was never a silver bullet to a virus issue. Sometimes,
>> inexperienced users do mistake it for a cure-all tho.
>
> And, it doesn't help matters when Bear keeps presenting it as such.

This makes no sense. There are no silver bullets when it comes to
malware prevention. I've said that here many times. There is no such
thing as a cure-all for anything. I've never said there was. What I have
said is the process I use is the best approach using today's tools and
it includes several safety nets.

>
>> Backups are an
>> excellent thing to be doing, but the way in which you pass them off
>> just isn't honest.
>
> Yep, he shouldn't even mention malware in that context.

Why else would you need to recover...it is exactly a plan to manage your
system and data and free yourself from the harm malware can inflict. Of
course it also applies to hard drive failure or the like, but such is
more rare and some people can change out their own hard drive and some
can't. Anyone can do the Pristine image and data management plans.

I'd like for you to list a comprehensive plan that would be more
efficient than the one I propose. If you are going to poo poo my plan,
then at least have the courtesy to back it up with a specific
alternative that works better and is easier, takes less time and allows
any skill level to do so. Balls in your court.

[FromTheRafters]

He is very trollish.

[FromTheRafters]

Just where did I poo poo your plan. I don't recall ever doing so.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02DAB0828FC7HHI2948AJD832@no:

>
> I'm not sure I'd credit him as the author... Possible, but not
> entirely likely. The slow infector relies on it not being detected for
> sometime, so that it can slowly work it's way into your backup
> history. As it's unknown at that point, it's a safe bet he'd include
> it in a supposedly "clean" image-short of install from clean media on
> known clean HD and no 3rd party apps. In reality this wouldn't work
> anymore due to the rapid rate in which samples are passed around and
> new definitions are posted to deal with them.

You can be certain the plan is my own. I've never seen anyone detail
such a plan as I've developed. I'm not saying it's complex, as if you
think it through with determined purpose, I suppose anyone could come up
with the same plan. Can that plan be improved...I haven't see how. Have
I seen anyone anywhere present such a plan....NO!

>
> In the past tho, the slow infector did have these backup systems in
> mind and intended to take advantage of the process.

The plan never uses any data that has been on a computer in use for any
amount of time. Could something go wrong...of course though unlikely if
the process is properly disciplined, but if such is discovered, there is
a failsafe backup plan for that. I've spent many hours testing than
thinking the plan through and it is as good as possible,

>
>> It does seem like a lot of work doing that when images are not the
>> right tool to battle malware. For the type of disaster recovery
>> images *do* address - there's no need to avoid slipstreaming.
>
> Agreed.

Wrong.

>
>> And, it doesn't help matters when Bear keeps presenting it as such.
>
> Based on his posts recently, he seems to behold some sort of grudge
> against techie types. Perhaps he feels they rip people off. He feels
> his plan puts techies out of business.
>

Not at all. It's the teach a person to fish thingy. My plan can be
easily enacted by anyone with the skills to download and install a
program. If they use it, they become self-reliant and have no need to
seek anyones help, lose no data ever, and can be certain they are using
a clean machine. Most end-users don't have the skills to become self-
reliant without such a plan. I also think the plan is worthy for
experienced users, as it eliminates the hours required to skillfully
clean a machine and be CERTAIN it is clean, not just have faith it is.

Such a concept is how I finally developed the plan as it is now. I
believe anything can be improved, and as I am the only contributor to
the plan at this point, experienced folks may be able to offer
suggestions on how to improve it if possible. I've had none of that,
from anyone here...just bitching.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlnm0o$frm$1...@dont-email.me:

Read some of your responses to Dustin...or are you just kissing ass?

LOL...I don't hate you dude. I'm just trying to get my ideas across,
elicit positive feedback pro or con, and I dislike the trollish
responses. I would prefer civil discussion, but I can hang either way.

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 07 Apr 2012 00:18:38 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>as I am the only contributor to
>the plan at this point, experienced folks may be able to offer
>suggestions on how to improve it if possible. I've had none of that,
>from anyone here...just bitching.

I've bothered to correct the inaccuracies in your security plan/wireless section twice,
and you still haven't fixed them. What's the fucking point.

--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass Sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker

[FromTheRafters]

I attempted to correct him on his interpretation on a minor point of
your recovery scheme, how do you see that as kissing ass?

> LOL...I don't hate you dude. I'm just trying to get my ideas across,
> elicit positive feedback pro or con, and I dislike the trollish
> responses. I would prefer civil discussion, but I can hang either way.

I have numerous times described your plan as worthy, my only gripe is
that it doesn't belong in an anti-virus newsgroup because it doesn't
address prevention which is what AV is ultimately about.

Your continued posting of that and other off-topic subjects in here is
why I called you 'trollish'.

...and I don't hate you either.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlpg3m$gmi$1...@dont-email.me:

Ah so if you get infected you are shit out of luck eh.

>
> Your continued posting of that and other off-topic subjects in here is
> why I called you 'trollish'.
>

I suppose my reply above says it all. You are wrong IMO.

The Imaging and data plan is part and parcel of my overall security plan
which covers prevention /and/ recovery. That /is/ what should be
discussed in this group.

So you think only virus and no other type of malware and the prevention
of is the only on topic material for this group...yeah, I added virus to
what you said as it is more literal.

I'll admit when I'm wrong, but not simply because someone says I
am...there has to be merit.

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 07 Apr 2012 14:23:25 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>The Imaging and data plan is part and parcel of my overall security plan
>which covers prevention /and/ recovery. That /is/ what should be
>discussed in this group.

Nothing is /discussed/ with you. I have told you a number of times that your 'security
plan' is a joke not least because of one *** GLARING OMISSION ***.

Nowhere does it mention NOT running day to day business in the context of an administrator
account. Nowhere. That's a joke. A very big one.

This obsession with recovery overshadows basic prevention. It's like you think you
discovered imaging. It's certainly not foolproof, and certainly not the full story.

>So you think only virus and no other type of malware and the prevention
>of is the only on topic material for this group...yeah, I added virus to
>what you said as it is more literal.
>
>I'll admit when I'm wrong, but not simply because someone says I
>am...there has to be merit.

Like you did in the DNS PROXY thread eh!

Your wireless encryption stuff sucks as well. I've corrected it twice. Google it.

[Bear]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02E5F85EF3D2be...@130.225.254.104:

The description for this group is: "Anti-virus topics relating to
computers" and not /only/ the prevention of. All forms of recovery
techniques have been discussed in this forum and even had it not been
so, it is most definitely an important part of the process of discussing
"Anti-virus topics relating to computers."

[Peter Foldes]

"FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:jlpg3m$gmi$1...@dont-email.me...

> Bear wrote:
>> FromTheRafters<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:jlnm0o$frm$1...@dont-email.me:
>>

> I have numerous times described your plan as worthy, my only gripe is that it
> doesn't belong in an anti-virus newsgroup because it doesn't address prevention
> which is what AV is ultimately about.
>
> Your continued posting of that and other off-topic subjects in here is why I
> called you 'trollish'.

Ah FTR. You cannot win or better still make Bear understand this discussion. He
does not and does not want to.
I have a long time ago decided that he is a Troll on account he is continually
beating a dead horse and will not make the effort to see other persons side on the
subject at hand.

JS

[Bear]

"Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jlpmdh$aej$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

I always see the other persons side on a subject. I just don't always
agree with it. You have stalked me since I've been in these groups with
never a positive contribution about anything.

[FromTheRafters]

Where did I say that?

There was a time when it was being argued that AV software should *not*
endeavor to repair an infection. It was thought better to detect and
delete corrupted programs and data, then restore them from backups. Only
later did they endeavor to clean files which IMO was just enabling users
to use unsafe practices - like not making those necessary backups.

>> Your continued posting of that and other off-topic subjects in here is
>> why I called you 'trollish'.
>>
> I suppose my reply above says it all. You are wrong IMO.

We are both entitled to our opinions.

> The Imaging and data plan is part and parcel of my overall security plan
> which covers prevention /and/ recovery.

I never said otherwise.

> That /is/ what should be
> discussed in this group.

I never said otherwise. I *did* say that recovery/restore operations do
*not* address the malware problem *at all*, and I didn't say that we
don't discuss other security issues here even though that wasn't the
original purpose of this group.

> So you think only virus and no other type of malware and the prevention
> of is the only on topic material for this group...yeah, I added virus to
> what you said as it is more literal.

You're welcome to ask me what I think, but please don't *tell* me what I
think.

> I'll admit when I'm wrong, but not simply because someone says I
> am...there has to be merit.

It seems to me that you're defending a viewpoint that is not being
attacked. A first step in disaster recovery is backup-backup-backup; a
first step in antimalware is to attempt prevention. If that fails, and
it *will*, it might then qualify as a disaster to be recovered from
depending on the malware(s) encountered.

[FromTheRafters]

Thanks for your input, Peter. I'll probably come to the same conclusion
but I want to give Bear the chance to bend a little first. If he remains
unwilling to learn, that's very telling.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jlpr37$h96$1...@dont-email.me:

>>> that it doesn't belong in an anti-virus newsgroup because it doesn't
>>> address prevention which is what AV is ultimately about.
>>
>> Ah so if you get infected you are shit out of luck eh.
>
> Where did I say that?

You said if it doesn't address prevention [period] then it is off-topic.

That clearly leaves out anything else for discussion but prevention.

>
> There was a time when it was being argued that AV software should
> *not* endeavor to repair an infection. It was thought better to detect
> and delete corrupted programs and data, then restore them from
> backups. Only later did they endeavor to clean files which IMO was
> just enabling users to use unsafe practices - like not making those
> necessary backups.

I agree. In order to properly clean a machine, you should be an expert.
Lot's of folks try and bork their machines or miss well hidden malware.

>
>>> Your continued posting of that and other off-topic subjects in here
>>> is why I called you 'trollish'.
>>>
>> I suppose my reply above says it all. You are wrong IMO.
>
> We are both entitled to our opinions.

I agree. My opinion however does not include telling you what to do or
not do.

>
>> The Imaging and data plan is part and parcel of my overall security
>> plan which covers prevention /and/ recovery.
>
> I never said otherwise.
>
>> That /is/ what should be
>> discussed in this group.
>
> I never said otherwise. I *did* say that recovery/restore operations
> do *not* address the malware problem *at all*, and I didn't say that
> we don't discuss other security issues here even though that wasn't
> the original purpose of this group.

We disagree. It better addresses the malware problem for regular users
(as in non-expert malware technicians) than anything else. Even the
experts resort to such.

>
>> So you think only virus and no other type of malware and the
>> prevention of is the only on topic material for this group...yeah, I
>> added virus to what you said as it is more literal.
>
> You're welcome to ask me what I think, but please don't *tell* me what
> I think.

I am trying to get you to clarify what you said: "... it doesn't address
prevention which is what AV is ultimately about. [period] That is just
wrong. It is what you said and all that you said. I'm not telling you
anything other than what you said.

>
>> I'll admit when I'm wrong, but not simply because someone says I
>> am...there has to be merit.
>
> It seems to me that you're defending a viewpoint that is not being
> attacked. A first step in disaster recovery is backup-backup-backup; a
> first step in antimalware is to attempt prevention. If that fails, and
> it *will*, it might then qualify as a disaster to be recovered from
> depending on the malware(s) encountered.
>

Disaster recovery is caused by malware among other things, therefore not
seperate. The first step is be ready for a quick clean recovery. Then
try to prevent which is impossible even for the greatest of experts. If
you are not an expert malware technician, either hire one or use one of
the free services, or learn a plan that can accomplish the same thing
without anyones help and in far less time.

You are not even close to convincing me otherwise.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:jlprj3$k0b$1@dont-
email.me:

>
> Thanks for your input, Peter. I'll probably come to the same conclusion
> but I want to give Bear the chance to bend a little first. If he remains
> unwilling to learn, that's very telling.

What about you. Are you willing to learn?

[RayLopez99]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:46:39 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
> Not to mention the possible problems from the antimalware
> community for showing users how to do dangerous or otherwise, unsafe
> things... Hell, I couldn't do much worse if I posted how to troubleshoot
> the electrical on your microwave. Many have, it's not difficult to work
> on in most cases, but it can kill you dead should you touch the wrong
> components.. So, for safety, somebody else can take the risk.. It won't
> be me.

Sounds like an urban legend, akin to touching TV vacuum tubes and being electrocuted to death. Not that I am dying to find out.

As for the antimalware community hassling you, seems like that stalker guy/gal from the anonymous remailer is one of them who is pissed at you Dustbin. Is that somebody whose system you ruined with your malware writing or a jilted lover?

RL

[Bear]

RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:26854112.236.1334730370625.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38:

I suppose you shouldn't teach people how to drive...the most dangerous
thing anyone on the planet can do. You can always hire an 'expert' and
let them kill you.

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 18 Apr 2012 10:09:55 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>I suppose you shouldn't teach people how to drive...the most dangerous
>thing anyone on the planet can do.

Yep, kicking vials of nitro glycerine pails by comparison.

--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat

[FromTheRafters]

RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:46:39 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
>> Not to mention the possible problems from the antimalware
>> community for showing users how to do dangerous or otherwise, unsafe
>> things... Hell, I couldn't do much worse if I posted how to troubleshoot
>> the electrical on your microwave. Many have, it's not difficult to work
>> on in most cases, but it can kill you dead should you touch the wrong
>> components.. So, for safety, somebody else can take the risk.. It won't
>> be me.

The Magnetron operates on high voltage, it needs the E-Field and the
H-Field to cause the needed oscillation.

> Sounds like an urban legend, akin to touching TV vacuum tubes and being electrocuted to death.

The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) from a television can hold a lethal charge.
It can even rebuild a lesser charge after having been discharged.

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jmmc5h$gmm$1...@dont-email.me:

Most all capacitors have the capability to store and discharge once
grounded. All cars have the ability to crash.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Bear" <bearbo...@gmai.com>

> FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:jmmc5h$gmm$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> RayLopez99 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:46:39 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
>>>> Not to mention the possible problems from the antimalware
>>>> community for showing users how to do dangerous or otherwise, unsafe
>>>> things... Hell, I couldn't do much worse if I posted how to
>>>> troubleshoot the electrical on your microwave. Many have, it's not
>>>> difficult to work on in most cases, but it can kill you dead should
>>>> you touch the wrong components.. So, for safety, somebody else can
>>>> take the risk.. It won't be me.
>>
>> The Magnetron operates on high voltage, it needs the E-Field and the
>> H-Field to cause the needed oscillation.
>>
>>> Sounds like an urban legend, akin to touching TV vacuum tubes and
>>> being electrocuted to death.
>>
>> The Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) from a television can hold a lethal charge.
>> It can even rebuild a lesser charge after having been discharged.
>>
> Most all capacitors have the capability to store and discharge once
> grounded. All cars have the ability to crash.
>

It has nothing to do with being grounded but the plates of a capacitor being
joined via a path of lower resistance. The discharge time is a function of
that resistance where the discharge rate increases as the resistance
decreases.



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Dustin]

RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:26854112.236.1334730370625.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38:

> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:46:39 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
>> Not to mention the possible problems from the antimalware
>> community for showing users how to do dangerous or otherwise, unsafe
>> things... Hell, I couldn't do much worse if I posted how to
>> troubleshoot the electrical on your microwave. Many have, it's not
>> difficult to work on in most cases, but it can kill you dead should
>> you touch the wrong components.. So, for safety, somebody else can
>> take the risk.. It won't be me.
>
> Sounds like an urban legend, akin to touching TV vacuum tubes and
> being electrocuted to death. Not that I am dying to find out.

an urban legend? Okay..

Here's the thing. your average 1000-1200watt 120volt ac driven Microwave
has the following typical components:

An electronics board to turn the magnetron off/on (It doesn't have a
real power option. I know your microwave has 10+, it's timing!)
controlled via a relay on the board.

This relay powers the high voltage system that actually generates the
microwaves. Your typical small magnetron requires 5000volts DC at 1.5+
ampers. That's achieved via step up transformer. You feed it 120volts AC
in, it generates nearly 3000 or so volts AC out at nearly 3amps average.
An HV diode usually connected on one end to the capacitor and the other
to the chassis turns the 3000 or so AC into 5000+DC at 1.5+ ampers with
a square wave. That has a very real potential of killing you if you come
in contact with it while energized or even when unplugged due to the HV
capacitor required to assist the High voltage transformer.

No urban myth.

The magnetron itself can also be dangerous due to radiation leakage if
repairs are done improperly. That's no myth either.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Bear]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:wr6dnbXY8Lf03BLS...@giganews.com:

Put your hand or finger close to one and see what happens...you become a
ground....might even fall to the ground dead.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039B9EF3F053be...@130.225.254.104:

you become ground? What? You completed a circuit if touching both
terminals. No ground required if you do that.

The description I provided for the circuit is a half wave rectifer. It
nearly doubles the output power. Say the step up transformer jumps your
120volts AC in to 2500ac. Well, when the diode and cap are finished;
it's 5000volts DC with amps! It's not something you want to short out,
or contact while powered up/down unless it's off, unplugged and
discharged beforehand.

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/micfaq.htm#micmicgenc

Includes a typical schematic common in most small microwaves...

[Dustin]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039BE9871AA5HHI2948AJD832@no:

> capacitor and the other to the chassis turns the 3000 or so AC into
> 5000+DC at 1.5+ ampers with a square wave. That has a very real
> potential of killing you if you come in contact with it while
> energized or even when unplugged due to the HV capacitor required to
> assist the High voltage transformer.

I incorrectly described the circuit in use. It's a half wave voltage
doubler, but it's producing 5000+ volts with amps! DO NOT touch those
magnetron terminals with it energized. Very good chance it'll be a lethal
experience.

Note the unusual circuit configuration - the magnetron is across the
diode, not the capacitor as in a 'normal' power supply. What this means is
that the peak voltage across the magnetron is the transformer secondary +
the voltage across the capacitor, so the peaks will approach the peak-peak
value of the transformer or nearly 5000 V in the example above. This is a
half wave voltage doubler. The output waveform looks like a sinusoid with
a p-p voltage equal to the p-p voltage of the transformer secondary with
its positive peaks at chassis ground (no load). The peaks are negative
with respect to the chassis. The negative peaks will get squashed somewhat
under load. Take extreme care - up to 5000 V at AMPs available! WARNING:
Never attempt to view this waveform on an oscilloscope unless you have a
commercial high voltage probe and know how to use it safely!

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/micfaq.htm#micmicgenc

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039D3E7E69FCHHI2948AJD832@no:

> you become ground? What? You completed a circuit if touching both
> terminals. No ground required if you do that.

basic 101 electronics...define complete a circuit...source to ground or
positive to negative if that really exists ... it's really just terms. It's
actually a path of flow and which way it flows isn't really technically
correct either .... ground meaning return. Your comment is synonomous.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039D475A1CE5HHI2948AJD832@no:

Capacitors store power or electricity or whatever you want to call the
energy. So a de-engized circuit can still release the energy stored if
you complete the circuit, i.e. provide a ground or return...same thing.
You are talking about energized circuits.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039D0A0B3EEbe...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA039D3E7E69FCHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> you become ground? What? You completed a circuit if touching both
>> terminals. No ground required if you do that.
>
> basic 101 electronics...define complete a circuit...source to ground
> or positive to negative if that really exists ... it's really just
> terms. It's actually a path of flow and which way it flows isn't
> really technically correct either .... ground meaning return. Your
> comment is synonomous.
>

Source directly to ground is a dead short. Positive directly to negative,
is again, a dead short. Terms are important. :)

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA039D12CD18E0be...@130.225.254.104:

I'm talking about the fact the popcorn making microwave oven common in
many households generates enough current to kill somebody if they touch
the wrong components while it's (a) energized or (b) not properly
discharged. That's all. :)

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03A4DD5D8779HHI2948AJD832@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA039D0A0B3EEbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA039D3E7E69FCHHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> you become ground? What? You completed a circuit if touching both
>>> terminals. No ground required if you do that.
>>
>> basic 101 electronics...define complete a circuit...source to ground
>> or positive to negative if that really exists ... it's really just
>> terms. It's actually a path of flow and which way it flows isn't
>> really technically correct either .... ground meaning return. Your
>> comment is synonomous.
>>
>
> Source directly to ground is a dead short. Positive directly to
> negative, is again, a dead short. Terms are important. :)
>
>

Of course they are and we were not talking about an empty circuit were
we. So comprehension is important as well.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03A4E01F79E6HHI2948AJD832@no:

and you would be right as well as many appliances and tools...110 volts
kills all the time, you don't just need induction or high capacity
capcitors or transformers.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03AA7937809Fbe...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA03A4DD5D8779HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA039D0A0B3EEbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA039D3E7E69FCHHI2948AJD832@no:
>>>
>>>> you become ground? What? You completed a circuit if touching both
>>>> terminals. No ground required if you do that.
>>>
>>> basic 101 electronics...define complete a circuit...source to ground
>>> or positive to negative if that really exists ... it's really just
>>> terms. It's actually a path of flow and which way it flows isn't
>>> really technically correct either .... ground meaning return. Your
>>> comment is synonomous.
>>>
>>
>> Source directly to ground is a dead short. Positive directly to
>> negative, is again, a dead short. Terms are important. :)
>>
>>
>
> Of course they are and we were not talking about an empty circuit were
> we. So comprehension is important as well.

I misworded it. Source directly to ground is well, grounded. Not good.
Positive to negative, direct short.. very bad.

I wasn't talking about an empty circuit. I was explaining to ray why
touching components inside the microwave could be fatal. Comprehension
is important, no doubt. It helps if we're both talking about the same
things tho.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03AA7CF4EEA7be...@130.225.254.104:

110volts will kill somebody who has heart issues, most likely tho, it'l
either try and hold you or make you let go because your fingers hurt.

The microwave tho, she's one of the most dangerous appliances you can
ever own.

[Bear Bottom's]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:47:31 GMT, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The microwave tho, she's one of the most dangerous appliances you can
>ever own.

Wrong. You shouldn't teach people how to drive... that's the most dangerous
thing anyone on the planet can do. You should always hire an 'expert' and

let them kill you.

--
Bear

http://bearware.nfo

The real Bear's header path is:

news.sunsite.dk!dotty.org!filter.dotty.org!news.dotty.org!not-for-
mail

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03AB4F87B0CDHHI2948AJD832@no:

Fair enough. Circuits flow from positive to negative (or negative to
positive depending on which theory you choose to accept) and the
componants inbetween determine the outcome. If one interjects himself as
a ground, the energy will discharge through him, be it stored energy or
from an energized circuit.

People thinking they are safe from a de-energized circuit may be in for
a zaprise.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03AB5285EFF9HHI2948AJD832@no:

1 milliamp you can feel, 10 milliamps can tighten your muscles so much
that you can't let go, and 100 milliamps can kill you. 10 milli amps
through the heart can kill you even if you don't have a heart condition.

The current (or speed of electricity) is the determining factor.
Most household current can deliver up to about 12 amps as in not milli
amps. Appliances dropped into bathtubs kill all the time...even though
the current is stepped down in these appliances, dropping them into the
water allows the full available energy to the appliance.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with anti-virus'.

[Bear]

Bear Bottom's <ihat...@bloodycat.invalid> wrote in
news:i821p79afmj32am94...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:47:31 GMT, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The microwave tho, she's one of the most dangerous appliances you can
>>ever own.
>
> Wrong. You shouldn't teach people how to drive... that's the most
> dangerous thing anyone on the planet can do. You should always hire an
> 'expert' and let them kill you.
>

LOL...if only Diana knew this.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info

The real Bear's header path is:

news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail

[FromTheRafters]

and ... you're wrong on several points.

[Dustin]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jmsgtj$i8n$1...@dont-email.me:

:)

[Bear]

FromTheRafters <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:jmsgtj$i8n$1@dont-
email.me:

> and ... you're wrong on several points.

Such as....this should be interesting.

[Bear]

Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA03BC705C56D4HHI2948AJD832@no:

We can carry on then. I do not lie and have not provided all of my
credentials but I'm not going to give any specific details. You brought
this discussion to this point not I. You are the one brandishing your
coder status as if it means something more than it does and wearing it
like a badge that makes only you capable of knowledge in these matters.

In the early days I was a technician for 8 years along with developing an
aviation career. In that capacity I have that much experience as a
operator of state of the art electrical, electronic and computer
technology and have to constantly evalute it to the most minute detail.

Amps kill, not volts. Everyone except you knows that.

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/corporate/aboutul/publications/newsletters
/electricalconnections/january09.pdf

http://goo.gl/ydHbR

--
Bear
http://bearware.info