Malwarebytes Chameleon

[Zo]

Malwarebytes Chameleon technologies get Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
installed and running when blocked by malicious programs.

http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/chameleon/

Nice one to keep on hand.

--
Zo

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped." -- Elbert Hubbard

[Bear]

Zo <hom...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a287dd1f855cba0.85371
@newsbill.net:

> Malwarebytes Chameleon technologies get Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
> installed and running when blocked by malicious programs.
>
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/chameleon/
>
> Nice one to keep on hand.
>

I do not have Malwarebytes installed on my computer. I downloaded
chameleon and followed the instructions. I clicked on all 12 links and
all that happened was the circle of wait, then a green check mark and
the word tested.

"Just click on the first button below and see if it runs. You'll know
it's working if a black DOS window appears, slays malicious programs,
and then starts Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. If the first button doesn't
work, try the next one. If that one doesn't work, just keep trying until
you find one that does! Then use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware as you
normally would to run a Quick Scan and remove the malware."

The above web link says "Chameleon Gets Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
Installed and Running"

My guess is the above quote is wrong and you must have Malwarebytes
already installed and Chameleon does something simple like change the
name of the exe to get the installed version to run. Just a guess
though.



--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!
news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail

[Poutnik]

Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 14:57:17 GMT

>
> The above web link says "Chameleon Gets Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
> Installed and Running"
>
> My guess is the above quote is wrong and you must have Malwarebytes
> already installed and Chameleon does something simple like change the
> name of the exe to get the installed version to run. Just a guess
> though.

It seems to me the Chameleon is in 12 copies
of various executables, with hope
one of then will pass malware anti execution self-protection.

MBAM-Chameleon ver. 1.62.1.1000
Press any key to continue
Installing Driver...
Protected Path: C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\
...Done!
Trying to update Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, please wait...
...Done!
Killing known malicious processes, please wait...
...Done!
Trying to run Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, please wait...
...Done!
Removing protection driver...
...Done!
Press any key to continue

--
Poutnik

[Zo]

Bear formulated the question :

Well I have it installed and when I clicked the very first button, it
started an operation that said that it was closing all known malware
targets. After completing that operation,it immediately opened
Malawarebytes,updated the data base then started to a scan of the
system.

It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to install
and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so by
malware.

--
Zo

Do you ACTUALLY read taglines?

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2b64d74f58ea1cf9d34
@news.eternal-september.org:

Isn't that pretty much the same thing I just said? Like I said, I got
green checks/tested on all 12 options, but Malwarebytes was not
installed thus it did not run.

I also said I did not have Malwarebytes already installed prior to this
test.

[Bear]

Zo <hom...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a847dd1fb7a6a62.85371
@newsbill.net:

> It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to install
> and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so by
> malware.

Likely so other than reading it correctly. What it says is "Chameleon Gets
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Installed and Running." That it doesn't do.

I now assume it is a communication issue and you must either have
Malwarebytes already installed or it allows you to install it if
installation is being prevented by malware as you say. But that is not what
it says.

[Poutnik]

Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 15:50:18 GMT

> Isn't that pretty much the same thing I just said? Like I said, I got
> green checks/tested on all 12 options, but Malwarebytes was not
> installed thus it did not run.
>
> I also said I did not have Malwarebytes already installed prior to this
> test.

I do not say otherwise, I just complement your post.

Note that I passed different way, downloading the archive,
where all 12 executables were contained.

--
Poutnik

[Zo]

Bear used his keyboard to write :

> Zo <hom...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a847dd1fb7a6a62.85371
> @newsbill.net:
>
>> It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to install
>> and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so by
>> malware.
>
> Likely so other than reading it correctly. What it says is "Chameleon Gets
> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Installed and Running." That it doesn't do.
>
> I now assume it is a communication issue and you must either have
> Malwarebytes already installed or it allows you to install it if
> installation is being prevented by malware as you say. But that is not what
> it says.

Does this explain it any better?

http://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/20872371-use-chameleon-to-run-malwarebytes-anti-malware-on-infected-systems


or Tiny URL: http://t1ny.us/b2er5

--
Zo

"Specialist in women and other diseases." -- A sign outside of Roman
doctor's office.

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2b64e06dc077bdaed35
@news.eternal-september.org:

That is exactly what I did...so you didn't "passed different way." Maybe
you mean you didn't use the CHM file to access the files. I did both though
it's redundant.

[Bear]

Zo <hom...@newsbill.net> wrote in
news:mn.9a997dd15...@newsbill.net:

> Bear used his keyboard to write :
>> Zo <hom...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a847dd1fb7a6a62.85371
>> @newsbill.net:
>>
>>> It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to
>>> install and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so
>>> by malware.
>>
>> Likely so other than reading it correctly. What it says is "Chameleon
>> Gets Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Installed and Running." That it
>> doesn't do.
>>
>> I now assume it is a communication issue and you must either have
>> Malwarebytes already installed or it allows you to install it if
>> installation is being prevented by malware as you say. But that is
>> not what it says.
>
> Does this explain it any better?
>
> http://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/20872371-use-chameleon-to-
run-
> malwarebytes-anti-malware-on-infected-systems
>
>
> or Tiny URL: http://t1ny.us/b2er5
>

Kinda sorta and no but yes maybe I guess. You must have Malwarebytes
already installed. Then you can add the Chameleon folder. Still nice but
the web site is misleading when it says "Chameleon Gets Malwarebytes
Anti-Malware Installed and Running." It will not install Malwarebytes.

Maybe it should say Chameleon gets Chameleon Installed and Running with
tools to enable Malwarebytes if it won't start. It actually downloads as
a zip file so even that is misleading as you have to un-zip the file and
place the folder in the Malwarebytes directory. I'm just sayin.

[Poutnik]

Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 16:13:07 GMT

> That is exactly what I did...so you didn't "passed different way." Maybe
> you mean you didn't use the CHM file to access the files. I did both though
> it's redundant.

As I did post the executable screen, it is not.

--
Poutnik

[Bear]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA14D6942ED691be...@130.225.254.104:

>> Does this explain it any better?
>>
>> http://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/20872371-use-chameleon-to-
> run-
>> malwarebytes-anti-malware-on-infected-systems
>>
>>
>> or Tiny URL: http://t1ny.us/b2er5
>>
>
> Kinda sorta and no but yes maybe I guess. You must have Malwarebytes
> already installed. Then you can add the Chameleon folder. Still nice
> but the web site is misleading when it says "Chameleon Gets
> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Installed and Running." It will not install
> Malwarebytes.
>
> Maybe it should say Chameleon gets Chameleon Installed and Running
> with tools to enable Malwarebytes if it won't start. It actually
> downloads as a zip file so even that is misleading as you have to
> un-zip the file and place the folder in the Malwarebytes directory.
> I'm just sayin.
>

*The forum says* "This post will explain how to use Chameleon to
install, start, or update Malwarebytes Anti-Malware when it has been
blocked by an infection. The program will kill all malicious processes
and then start Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, allowing you to remove all
malware.

1. Please open your Start Menu and navigate to the Malwarebytes' Anti-
Malware folder

2. Open the Tools folder and then open the Help File titled
"Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Chameleon"

3. A page just like below will appear on your screen. Follow the
instructions to get Malwarebytes Anti-Malware running."

*The website says* "Malwarebytes Chameleon technologies get Malwarebytes

Anti-Malware installed and running when blocked by malicious programs.

Usage: Download Chameleon from the link to the right. Unzip the contents
to a folder in a convenient location. Follow the instructions in the
included Chameleon CHM Help File or, if the help file will not open,
simply try to run the (12) files by double-clicking on them one by one
until one of them remains open, then follow the onscreen instructions."

Maybe Malwarebytes new versions include the Chameleon tool? It just
isn't very clear from the instructions point of view.

If you have Malwarebytes installed it is easy and straight forward
enough.

It is a nice and helpful tool.

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.2b64e65...@news.eternal-september.org:

I have no clue what you mean.

[Bear]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA14D6AC93F248be...@130.225.254.104:

> If you have Malwarebytes installed it is easy and straight forward
> enough.
>
> It is a nice and helpful tool.

Maybe they only have coders to write instructions who have no skills to do
so. Should David go back? Oops - dats right - he's a coder too or haven't
you heard.

[Double Shot Latte with Hazelnut Syrup]

On Jan 19, 8:34 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote innews:XnsA14D6AC93F248be...@130.225.254.104:

>
> > If you have Malwarebytes installed it is easy and straight forward
> > enough.
>
> > It is a nice and helpful tool.
>
> Maybe they only have coders to write instructions who have no skills to do
> so. Should David go back? Oops - dats right - he's a coder too or haven't
> you heard.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

Bear, when did you stop being a pink triangle buttplugged forger
script kiddie?

[Mark Warner]

Zo wrote:
>
> Well I have it installed and when I clicked the very first button, it
> started an operation that said that it was closing all known malware
> targets. After completing that operation,it immediately opened
> Malawarebytes,updated the data base then started to a scan of the system.
>
> It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to install
> and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so by malware.

Looks to possibly be a GUI front end for rkill and its variants, with
added scripting to launch MBAM. Never have used Chameleon, but use rkill
as step #1 followed by a scan with MBAM when first attacking an infested
machine.

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/rkill/

Not surprising this has Bear totally flummoxed.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Mike Easter]

If MBAM is not already installed, this is the best page to communicate
Chameleon's role.

http://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/21452626-use-malwarebytes-chameleon-to-install-malwarebytes-anti-malware-on-an-already-infected-system
Use Malwarebytes Chameleon to install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware on an
already infected system

That page says to dl, extract, and run Ch online and it will then dl and
install and update MBAM.



--
Mike Easter

[Bear]

Mark Warner <mhwarner.i...@gmail.com> wrote in news:am04dfF1ud5U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Not surprising this has Bear totally flummoxed.

Not surprising you couldn't keep up or comprehend.

[Mike Easter]

error

Mike Easter wrote:
> If MBAM is not already installed, this is the best page to communicate
> Chameleon's role.

Correct.

> http://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/21452626-use-malwarebytes-chameleon-to-install-malwarebytes-anti-malware-on-an-already-infected-system
> Use Malwarebytes Chameleon to install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware on an
> already infected system
>

> That page says to dl, extract, (Chameleon)

> and run Ch online

error.

The Ch zip contains one help file and a whole bunch of different names
and 'shapes' of executables, various names attached to scr, exe, pif,
and com extensions.

If the help file works, one follows the instructions. If the help file
doesn't work, one starts clicking on the various executables in the
folder 'manually'.

> and it will then dl and install and update MBAM.

Correct.


--
Mike Easter

[Bear]

Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in
news:am080p...@mid.individual.net:

That works...thanks Mike. When I downloaded the first time however, it
did not work...I'm not sure if the two download locations were the same
- it looked as if they were...but there was a difference.

When I clicked on a link in the help file with the first download of the
zip file, all 12 did the same thing....a green check mark with the word
tested. When I downloaded from your link click "here" and ran the first
link, a command window opened "hit enter to continue" as stated. I
didn't go any farther as I do not wish to install any programs...I
prefer all portable, but I assume it would give instructions as
indicated.

[Mike Easter]

Bear wrote:
> Mike Easter

>>> If MBAM is not already installed, this is the best page to
>>> communicate Chameleon's role.

>> The Ch zip contains one help file and a whole bunch of different names
>> and 'shapes' of executables, various names attached to scr, exe, pif,
>> and com extensions.

> That works...thanks Mike.

> When I downloaded from your link click "here" and ran the first
> link, a command window opened "hit enter to continue" as stated.

The link I posted previously contains "Download Malwarebytes Chameleon
from here" which directs to this link

http://downloads.malwarebytes.org/file/chameleon

... which link results in dl of...

mbam-chameleon-1.62.1.1000.zip

... which zip contents are as described

In the help view, when you click one of the chameleon buttons such as
#1, it executes one of the 12 executables, which are 12 different names
of the same executable working in a dos box/ command shell. The click
also changes the #1 button from a button to a tested icon. Cute touch.

Incidentally, I can see all of that in my linux Mint, including which of
the executables is started with each help file button. I haven't looked
at any of this with a Win box. It wasn't necessary to use wine or
actually extract the zipped files into a folder.

I didn't actually wine/run any of the executables.


--
Mike Easter

[Banana Daiquiri]

On Jan 19, 12:04 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote innews:am080p...@mid.individual.net:

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path:
> news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
> mail

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA14D5B19AD918be...@130.225.254.104:

> My guess is the above quote is wrong and you must have Malwarebytes
> already installed and Chameleon does something simple like change the
> name of the exe to get the installed version to run. Just a guess
> though.

Wrong guess. Chameleon is a pre start app, actually self contained. It
does a little house work against some malware samples that seek to prevent
malwarebytes from starting up. I expect it'll be continually updated to
deal with other malware samples that specifically target them.

You can read about how it all works in a few months from now when I
release my disclose documentation on the product. I've found what I
consider to be rather alarming problems under the hood which directly
affects the security it offers.

Rather than go thru private channels, I feel the general public should
know about something many pay for.

In summary, sometimes, a lifetime license isn't as good a deal as one
might think.




--
My take home pay isn't enough to take me home!

[Bear]

Dustin <drop.thos...@raidsplace.org> wrote in
news:XnsA154C150AB52FB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> In summary, sometimes, a lifetime license isn't as good a deal as one
> might think.

Sometimes? A lifetime license is simply a gimmick you village idiot.

[The Cross Of Saint Joan of Arc of Lorraine Standard of the French Resistance Against STATE TERROR]

On Jan 26, 7:02 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <drop.those.pant...@raidsplace.org> wrote innews:XnsA154C150AB52FB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

>
> > In summary, sometimes, a lifetime license isn't as good a deal as one
> > might think.
>
> Sometimes? A lifetime license is simply a gimmick you village idiot.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA154D61A67458be...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <drop.thos...@raidsplace.org> wrote in
> news:XnsA154C150AB52FB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>> In summary, sometimes, a lifetime license isn't as good a deal as one
>> might think.
>
> Sometimes? A lifetime license is simply a gimmick you village idiot.

I said sometimes for a reason. I have a lifetime user license to several
products; which I continue to use today. I paid for them several years
ago; I've been more than pleased with them.

So, no it's not a gimmick. As soon as mbam tightens up the issues I've
found (I'm certain others know about these same issues) it'll be more than
worth the onetime license fee they ask for. It almost is now. The issues
are livable, it's not a deal breaker per say.

You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but it
doesn't really make it so. :)

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but it
> doesn't really make it so. :)

Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else, it

doesn't really make it so. :)

I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them. You have
knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really doesn't help
anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is much more to being
smart than that. You demonstrate serious intellectual flaws daily...almost
every post you make amplifies that.

[telsar]

On 1/27/2013 12:43 PM, Bear wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but it
>> doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else, it
> doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them. You have
> knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really doesn't help
> anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is much more to being
> smart than that. You demonstrate serious intellectual flaws daily...almost
> every post you make amplifies that.
>

tru dat!

--
Steal a little and go to jail, steal a lot and become King.

http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 27, 10:43 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote innews:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

>
> > You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but it
> > doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else, it
> doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them. You have
> knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really doesn't help
> anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is much more to being
> smart than that. You demonstrate serious intellectual flaws daily...almost
> every post you make amplifies that.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail


Bear, are you still wearing that pink triangle reserved for gays? Is
your buttplug well adjusted? Are you still a forger script kiddie?
What did you do to Jax to make her go over to Haby as her lover?
Please explain. We need to know, Bear, do tell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 6:57 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Zo <home...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a287dd1f855cba0.85371
> @newsbill.net:

>
> > Malwarebytes Chameleon technologies get Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
> > installed and running when blocked by malicious programs.
>

> >http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/chameleon/
>
> > Nice one to keep on hand.
>
> I do not have Malwarebytes installed on my computer. I downloaded
> chameleon and followed the instructions. I clicked on all 12 links and
> all that happened was the circle of wait, then a green check mark and
> the word tested.
>
> "Just click on the first button below and see if it runs. You'll know
> it's working if a black DOS window appears, slays malicious programs,
> and then starts Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. If the first button doesn't
> work, try the next one. If that one doesn't work, just keep trying until
> you find one that does! Then use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware as you
> normally would to run a Quick Scan and remove the malware."
>
> The above web link says "Chameleon Gets Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
> Installed and Running"
>

> My guess is the above quote is wrong and you must have Malwarebytes
> already installed and Chameleon does something simple like change the
> name of the exe to get the installed version to run. Just a guess
> though.
>

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 7:50 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2b64d74f58ea1cf9d34
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 14:57:17 GMT

>
> >> The above web link says "Chameleon Gets Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
> >> Installed and Running"
>
> >> My guess is the above quote is wrong and you must have Malwarebytes
> >> already installed and Chameleon does something simple like change the
> >> name of the exe to get the installed version to run. Just a guess
> >> though.
>

> > It seems to me the Chameleon is in 12 copies
> > of various executables, with hope
> > one of then will pass malware anti execution self-protection.
>
> > MBAM-Chameleon ver. 1.62.1.1000
> > Press any key to continue
> > Installing Driver...
> > Protected Path: C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\
> > ...Done!
> > Trying to update Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, please wait...
> > ...Done!
> > Killing known malicious processes, please wait...
> > ...Done!
> > Trying to run Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, please wait...
> > ...Done!
> > Removing protection driver...
> > ...Done!
> > Press any key to continue

>
> Isn't that pretty much the same thing I just said? Like I said, I got
> green checks/tested on all 12 options, but Malwarebytes was not
> installed thus it did not run.
>
> I also said I did not have Malwarebytes already installed prior to this
> test.
>

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 7:54 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Zo <home...@newsbill.net> wrote in news:mn.9a847dd1fb7a6a62.85371
> @newsbill.net:

>
> > It's main purpose if I read it correctly, is to enable one to install
> > and or run Malawarebytes when it is being prevented to do so by
> > malware.
>

> Likely so other than reading it correctly. What it says is "Chameleon Gets
> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Installed and Running." That it doesn't do.
>
> I now assume it is a communication issue and you must either have
> Malwarebytes already installed or it allows you to install it if
> installation is being prevented by malware as you say. But that is not what
> it says.
>

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 8:13 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2b64e06dc077bdaed35

> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 15:50:18 GMT
>
> >> Isn't that pretty much the same thing I just said? Like I said, I got
> >> green checks/tested on all 12 options, but Malwarebytes was not
> >> installed thus it did not run.
>
> >> I also said I did not have Malwarebytes already installed prior to this
> >> test.
>
> > I do not say otherwise, I just complement your post.
>
> > Note that I passed different way, downloading the archive,
> > where all 12 executables were contained.
>
> That is exactly what I did...so you didn't "passed different way." Maybe
> you mean you didn't use the CHM file to access the files. I did both though
> it's redundant.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 8:29 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote innews:XnsA14D6942ED691be...@130.225.254.104:

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path:
> news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
> mail

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 8:30 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote innews:MPG.2b64e65...@news.eternal-september.org:

>
>
>
> > Bear posted 19 Jan 2013 16:13:07 GMT
>
> >> That is exactly what I did...so you didn't "passed different way."
> >> Maybe you mean you didn't use the CHM file to access the files. I did
> >> both though it's redundant.
>
> > As I did post the executable screen, it is not.
>
> I have no clue what you mean.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 8:34 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote innews:XnsA14D6AC93F248be...@130.225.254.104:

>
> > If you have Malwarebytes installed it is easy and straight forward
> > enough.
>
> > It is a nice and helpful tool.
>
> Maybe they only have coders to write instructions who have no skills to do
> so. Should David go back? Oops - dats right - he's a coder too or haven't
> you heard.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 10:37 am, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibiti...@gmail.com> wrote in news:am04dfF1ud5U1

> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > Not surprising this has Bear totally flummoxed.
>
> Not surprising you couldn't keep up or comprehend.
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Law West of the Pecos]

On Jan 19, 12:04 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:

> Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote innews:am080p...@mid.individual.net:

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path:
> news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
> mail

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155817DF6855be...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but
>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else,
> it doesn't really make it so. :)

Nice spin. Doesn't apply tho. You're putting words in my mouth at this
point. I'm just discussing facts and technical things with you Bear.
I've said nothing about smarter/dumber than you. I leave that decision
upto the readers.

> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them. You
> have knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really
> doesn't help anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is
> much more to being smart than that. You demonstrate serious
> intellectual flaws daily...almost every post you make amplifies that.

The skills I have are useful for a wide variety of IT related tasks. I
can fix things onsite without the benefit of other software. That
doesn't necessarily make me smarter or dumber than anyone else. It
simply makes me well trained/educated/whatever and prepared. Take it how
you will.

I demonstrate flaws with the way I actually write. Certainly. On a daily
basis in fact. I'm sure i've made enough errors in this post to piss any
english professor off. I'm not going to provide background information
on why this happens tho. [g]

I am human and thus, make mistakes. No big deal. if that's the best
thing you can attack me for, I'll live. I say it's most likely my
writing style/improper use of english that you're
confusing/intentionally? for "intellectual flaws". My intellect is fine.
It spotted you right away.

[Dustin]

telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:ke3u59$nq$3...@dont-email.me:

> On 1/27/2013 12:43 PM, Bear wrote:
>> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>>
>>> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but
>>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>>
>> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else,
>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>>
>> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them.
>> You have knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really
>> doesn't help anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is
>> much more to being smart than that. You demonstrate serious
>> intellectual flaws daily...almost every post you make amplifies
>> that.
>>
>
> tru dat!
>

*smooch*

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155DA7A0266AB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA155817DF6855be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>>
>>> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but
>>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>>
>> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else,
>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> Nice spin. Doesn't apply tho. You're putting words in my mouth at this
> point. I'm just discussing facts and technical things with you Bear.
> I've said nothing about smarter/dumber than you. I leave that decision
> upto the readers.
>
>> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them. You
>> have knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really
>> doesn't help anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is
>> much more to being smart than that. You demonstrate serious
>> intellectual flaws daily...almost every post you make amplifies that.
>
> The skills I have are useful for a wide variety of IT related tasks. I
> can fix things onsite without the benefit of other software. That
> doesn't necessarily make me smarter or dumber than anyone else. It
> simply makes me well trained/educated/whatever and prepared. Take it
> how you will.

Heh, you can't fix a machine reliably to a known clean state. It's
impossible to the point of time expended to do so relative to time it
takes to know so.

>
> I demonstrate flaws with the way I actually write. Certainly. On a
> daily basis in fact. I'm sure i've made enough errors in this post to
> piss any english professor off. I'm not going to provide background
> information on why this happens tho. [g]

I don't really care about English Professors - nor should you. You do
well enough when you are not boasting.

>
> I am human and thus, make mistakes. No big deal. if that's the best
> thing you can attack me for, I'll live. I say it's most likely my
> writing style/improper use of english that you're
> confusing/intentionally? for "intellectual flaws". My intellect is
> fine. It spotted you right away.

I'm not attacking you. If anything, you are attacking me, but like you,
I could care less. I will point out that your boasting exceeds your
competance or reasoning - as always...it just get in the way and people
stop listening.

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155DA83573F3B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

Thatsa touche!

[Mark Warner]

Bear wrote:

> Dustin wrote:
>>
>> The skills I have are useful for a wide variety of IT related tasks. I
>> can fix things onsite without the benefit of other software. That
>> doesn't necessarily make me smarter or dumber than anyone else. It
>> simply makes me well trained/educated/whatever and prepared. Take it
>> how you will.
>
> Heh, you can't fix a machine reliably to a known clean state. It's
> impossible to the point of time expended to do so relative to time it
> takes to know so.

Is English your second language?

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155D1DF01F0be...@130.225.254.104:

> Heh, you can't fix a machine reliably to a known clean state. It's
> impossible to the point of time expended to do so relative to time it
> takes to know so.

Actually, I can. I've done so many many times. I can prove it too. :) I've
got the knowledge and the tools to do exactly that. It's impossible/semi
if you don't have the tools and the required knowledge; and I'll give you
that most home/end users don't. But then, that's why they call me. :)

> I could care less. I will point out that your boasting exceeds your
> competance or reasoning - as always...it just get in the way and people
> stop listening.

Well Bear, I'm not intentionally boasting when I say I've done or can do
this or that. If you'll notice, it's restricted to IT/electrical things.
very restricted. I don't claim to be a master gunsmith or plumber or
anything else along those lines.

At the same time tho, I'm no idiot when it comes to these machines
sitting/standing beside us either. You just don't get techies is all. [g]

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155E25F81F80B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA155D1DF01F0be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Heh, you can't fix a machine reliably to a known clean state. It's
>> impossible to the point of time expended to do so relative to time it
>> takes to know so.
>
> Actually, I can. I've done so many many times. I can prove it too. :)
> I've got the knowledge and the tools to do exactly that. It's
> impossible/semi if you don't have the tools and the required
> knowledge; and I'll give you that most home/end users don't. But then,
> that's why they call me. :)

I'll put you to that test. I will bet that I can put a heavily
compromised system back to a known clean state faster and much more
reliably unless you use the same techniques that I do - then it will be
a tie. :)

>
>> I could care less. I will point out that your boasting exceeds your
>> competance or reasoning - as always...it just get in the way and
>> people stop listening.
>
> Well Bear, I'm not intentionally boasting when I say I've done or can
> do this or that. If you'll notice, it's restricted to IT/electrical
> things. very restricted. I don't claim to be a master gunsmith or
> plumber or anything else along those lines.

So you do understand that coding isn't the all powerful answer to basic
understanding of managing computers and data.

>
> At the same time tho, I'm no idiot when it comes to these machines
> sitting/standing beside us either. You just don't get techies is all.
> [g]
>

I believe you. I think you have extremely valuable techinical knowledge.
The presentation is flawed...of course IMO.

[Lady Margaret Thatcher]

On Jan 27, 7:14 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote innews:XnsA155E25F81F80B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
> > Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote in

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!
> news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail

[Lady Margaret Thatcher]

On Jan 27, 6:39 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote innews:XnsA155DA83573F3B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote innews:ke3u59$nq$3...@dont-email.me:

>
> >> On 1/27/2013 12:43 PM, Bear wrote:

> >>> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote in

> >>>news:XnsA1558660AFDBB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
> >>>> You can keep referring to me as the village idiot if you wish, but
> >>>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> >>> Ah, so when you proclaim you are so much smarter than everyone else,
> >>> it doesn't really make it so. :)
>
> >>> I have no need for the skills you do have or the desire for them.
> >>> You have knowledge from a deeper coding perspective, but that really
> >>> doesn't help anywhere but in your specific job of coding. There is
> >>> much more to being smart than that. You demonstrate serious
> >>> intellectual flaws daily...almost every post you make amplifies
> >>> that.
>
> >> tru dat!
>
> > *smooch*
>
> Thatsa touche!
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[telsar]

*smoochy-smooch*

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA155D806F5894be...@130.225.254.104:

> I'll put you to that test. I will bet that I can put a heavily
> compromised system back to a known clean state faster and much more
> reliably unless you use the same techniques that I do - then it will
> be a tie. :)

Well, the only way the test would be fair then Bear is if we both use
the same tools. right? So, there would be no clean image available to
you for restoration. As that would be cheating. Wouldn't exactly be fair
for me to have to hunt and fix things and you just blow a good image
back onto the machine. I wasn't making a time to do this comparison
here. :)

You'd have to go into the machine and remove the offending software
components and fix the damage. While your inside the machine you must do
a step you wouldn't have done had you imaged it and try to prevent the
issue from happening again. If it's an exploit or result of unpatched
software; you fix it.

If it's a new unpatched vulnerability you've discovered, you must take
steps to mitigate the damage it can cause. Create another account for
the user, drop it's admin rights; etc. Control the possible damage. :)

Contact the vendors of the software packages if nothing new is already
out to deal with it and let them know about it, provide as much
information as you possibly can. So that they can duplicate the results
and fix it.

If it was some new malware/ransomware crap, it might not be on you, but
you'd still have to check.

> So you do understand that coding isn't the all powerful answer to
> basic understanding of managing computers and data.

I don't bring coding up all the time. However, it is a useful skillset
to have with IT. If you don't have it, then I'm sorry; but you simply
aren't going to be able to compete with someone who does. It's an
advantage they have over you. Like it or not. It isn't the be/end all of
IT work tho. You can get by without ever writing a single line of script
(forget code), if you really wanted to go that route. I know technicians
who do. Sadly, their the quickest ones I know for the reload the system
routine if it has something on it, too.

> I believe you. I think you have extremely valuable techinical
> knowledge. The presentation is flawed...of course IMO.

My presentations are always terrible. Have you seen the docs to
BugHunter? :) Some other users were kind enough to actually rewrite it
for me. The original was absolutely terrible. It explained how to use
it, but it was written by a techie who wrote it.. So.. I had a tendency
of leaving things out; things I just expected the user would know to do.

I told you I wasn't perfect, Bear. :)

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA156B47395F1AB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Well, the only way the test would be fair then Bear is if we both use
> the same tools. right? So, there would be no clean image available to
> you for restoration. As that would be cheating. Wouldn't exactly be fair
> for me to have to hunt and fix things and you just blow a good image
> back onto the machine. I wasn't making a time to do this comparison
> here. :)

Thank you Dustin. You helped prove that Imaging is the first and formost
thing a person should do before going out into the wild. If you are not
prepared, you are/may be fucked...and have to pay a reterd, as opposed to
retard, to get you outta the mess when ya coulda done it yourself - free -
and much much faster.

Game, set, match :)

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA156AE0F254A5be...@130.225.254.104:

> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA156B47395F1AB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>> Well, the only way the test would be fair then Bear is if we both
>> use the same tools. right? So, there would be no clean image
>> available to you for restoration. As that would be cheating.
>> Wouldn't exactly be fair for me to have to hunt and fix things and
>> you just blow a good image back onto the machine. I wasn't making a
>> time to do this comparison here. :)
>
> Thank you Dustin. You helped prove that Imaging is the first and
> formost thing a person should do before going out into the wild. If
> you are not prepared, you are/may be fucked...and have to pay a
> reterd, as opposed to retard, to get you outta the mess when ya
> coulda done it yourself - free - and much much faster.

I think you missed what I wrote completely here. Imaging is useful for
hardware failures primarily, or I suppose, really seriously borked
software/OS installations. It's not and never has been a cure for
malware tho. The image isn't going to correct the problem which allowed
the malware to get on the machine in the first place.

Proper security/firewall configuration is more important before going
online than imaging the machine. You can image it when your happy its
working as it should.

Images can also fail, and restore discs sometimes don't even work from
factory due to unforeseen bugs because they did not test them. The
restore partition on an HP 9260f for example will not actually restore
the system without a patch from HP being downloaded and installed first.
If you try, you're told the restore discs you made are not for this
computer.

As long as things like that crop up, and computers continue to break
down; like it or not, people like me, are still useful to others. We can
fix their problems and we don't rip them off, despite your unfounded
claims that we do.

I guess if anything, I've only proven that you are selective in what you
read/respond to and take things out of context to try and prove your
side of the argument.

> Game, set, match :)

Well, as I've always said, Umm.. no, I don't think so. In your dreams
only, Bear.

[Lady Margaret Thatcher]

On Jan 28, 3:06 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote innews:XnsA156B47395F1AB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

>
> > Well, the only way the test would be fair then Bear is if we both use
> > the same tools. right? So, there would be no clean image available to
> > you for restoration. As that would be cheating. Wouldn't exactly be fair
> > for me to have to hunt and fix things and you just blow a good image
> > back onto the machine. I wasn't making a time to do this comparison
> > here. :)
>
> Thank you Dustin. You helped prove that Imaging is the first and formost
> thing a person should do before going out into the wild. If you are not
> prepared, you are/may be fucked...and have to pay a reterd, as opposed to
> retard, to get you outta the mess when ya coulda done it yourself - free -
> and much much faster.
>
> Game, set, match :)
>
> --

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
> not-for-mail

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA156E6824FCD6B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA156AE0F254A5be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA156B47395F1AB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>>
>>> Well, the only way the test would be fair then Bear is if we both
>>> use the same tools. right? So, there would be no clean image
>>> available to you for restoration. As that would be cheating.
>>> Wouldn't exactly be fair for me to have to hunt and fix things and
>>> you just blow a good image back onto the machine. I wasn't making a
>>> time to do this comparison here. :)
>>
>> Thank you Dustin. You helped prove that Imaging is the first and
>> formost thing a person should do before going out into the wild. If
>> you are not prepared, you are/may be fucked...and have to pay a
>> reterd, as opposed to retard, to get you outta the mess when ya
>> coulda done it yourself - free - and much much faster.
>
> I think you missed what I wrote completely here. Imaging is useful for
> hardware failures primarily, or I suppose, really seriously borked
> software/OS installations. It's not and never has been a cure for
> malware tho. The image isn't going to correct the problem which
> allowed the malware to get on the machine in the first place.

I don't think anyone missed my point. I certainly didn't miss yours. You
act as if there is a reliable way to prevent malware compromises. There
is not. Correcting the problem which allowed the malware to get on the
machine is impossible. What you mean by saying that, is stupid end-
users, or putting better prevention tools on board, or hardening your
system etc. Even after the best attempts at doing so, it is never bullet
proof.

>
> Proper security/firewall configuration is more important before going
> online than imaging the machine. You can image it when your happy its
> working as it should.

That is just wrong Dustin...back-asswards. Never image a system that has
been used in the wild except under very controlled circumstances such as
MS and program updates or installs. Installs can be a problem if they
are not from well known sources - but my plan includes a factory with MS
and Vendor Updates image in the event you discover you've installed
malware ridden programs. Test these programs well on your old system
before you reload your last known clean image to make updates on and
then reimage.

>
> Images can also fail, and restore discs sometimes don't even work from
> factory due to unforeseen bugs because they did not test them. The
> restore partition on an HP 9260f for example will not actually restore
> the system without a patch from HP being downloaded and installed
> first. If you try, you're told the restore discs you made are not for
> this computer.

Now you are reaching. Even with machines that come with system factory
images on the hard drive are unreliable besides usually very outdated.
Make your own when you first purchase a machine, or if you didn't do so,
restage and start over and make your image. Never rely on factory
restoration software that resides on your hard drive, or even factory
restoration discs. Make and update your own system images.

I always get factory restoration media (usually CD/DVDs) when I purchase
a machine as a last ditch standby. If they don't work, order some more.
CD/DVD's can be very unreliable and I do not recommend long term
reliance on them. I do recommend at least two external hard drives as
they can fail, and at least a third Cloud backup system. Triple
redundancy. Sounds a bit complicated for some folks, but most of that
can be automated and the rest takes seconds to initiate or setup. It is
very easy for end-users once shown how to do it, or for those who take
the time to learn it.

>
> As long as things like that crop up, and computers continue to break
> down; like it or not, people like me, are still useful to others. We
> can fix their problems and we don't rip them off, despite your
> unfounded claims that we do.

You don't teach them to fish though do you. You fix their machine, take
their money and tell them not to be so stupid next time - bye bye.

>
> I guess if anything, I've only proven that you are selective in what
> you read/respond to and take things out of context to try and prove
> your side of the argument.

You haven't proven shit Dustin.

>
>> Game, set, match :)
>
> Well, as I've always said, Umm.. no, I don't think so. In your dreams
> only, Bear.
>

Game, set, match.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On 29 Jan 2013 11:18:10 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>I don't think anyone missed my point. I certainly didn't miss yours. You
>act as if there is a reliable way to prevent malware compromises. There
>is not.

This totally ridiculous, fatalistic approach to security is penned by a
idiot. There are a number of ways to significantly reduce your chances
of getting malware.

Use Linux.

Run in the context of a user account.

Install an AV suite.

Use the windows firewall, and a router.

Use a filtered email feed.

Keep your OS updated.

Keep your applications updated.

Use a modern Windows OS and hardware and benefit from tech like DEP,
ASLR etc

and don't be stupid. Don't click on anything you haven't checked out.
Use ACF, forums, upload anything new to Jotti, and test in a VM, before
you install it.

*IMAGING IS NOT A SECURITY MEASURE*

and it should *never* be proffered as a solution to combat the problem
of malware.

>Correcting the problem which allowed the malware to get on the
>machine is impossible. What you mean by saying that, is stupid end-
>users, or putting better prevention tools on board, or hardening your
>system etc. Even after the best attempts at doing so, it is never bullet
>proof.

--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll inf�me,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval]

Taking a break from John Corliss, John Corliss(ES), John.Cor11ss, John-C0rliss,
J0hn Corliss, John C0rl1ss(ES), Jo^hn Corliss, John.Corl1ss, John^Corliss,
Johnny(ES)Corliss, Big John Corliss, John Corliss', John$Corliss(ES),

[telsar]

You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
points, but they were spurious to the theme.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:15 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
>points, but they were spurious to the theme.

Another self appointed dickhead.

--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,

[telsar]

On 1/29/2013 10:14 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:15 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
>> points, but they were spurious to the theme.
>
> Another self appointed dickhead.
>

perhaps your right, but I read it through and that is my opinion. and I
think maybe you too are also kind of a dickhead :)

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:29:07 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 1/29/2013 10:14 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:15 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
>>> points, but they were spurious to the theme.
>>
>> Another self appointed dickhead.
>>
>perhaps your right, but I read it through and that is my opinion. and I
>think maybe you too are also kind of a dickhead :)

So explain how imaging stops your data getting into the hands of people
you don't want it to?

It doesn't fulfil that criteria at all. It doesn't combat malware. It
isn't a solution for that problem.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infāme,

[telsar]

On 1/29/2013 10:37 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:29:07 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2013 10:14 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:15 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
>>>> points, but they were spurious to the theme.
>>>
>>> Another self appointed dickhead.
>>>
>> perhaps your right, but I read it through and that is my opinion. and I
>> think maybe you too are also kind of a dickhead :)
>
> So explain how imaging stops your data getting into the hands of people
> you don't want it to?

It doesn't and it is so obvious. Its a false point, spurious and off.

>
> It doesn't fulfil that criteria at all. It doesn't combat malware. It
> isn't a solution for that problem.

No it doesn't. Its recovery from malware or other horrible thing, gets
you back to normal/fresh state. I mean you could pick the peanuts out
of poop to eat, but its better just to have fresh ones.

>
> *IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

Actually its the first thing to do, or other suitable backup scheme.

Most folks buy a computer and use some security software and then
contaminate their machine until it stops. With-out a way to get it back
to a fresh working install, they are fuqued... The articles we have had
posted to this group show that none of the monolithic computer
protection anti-* programs work against whats out there in even most
cases, so ...

It just doesn't seem so hard to me.

[Mark Warner]

telsar wrote:
>
> Most folks buy a computer and use some security software and then
> contaminate their machine until it stops. With-out a way to get it back
> to a fresh working install, they are fuqued...

Exactly. That's how it works in the *real* *world* where most of us have
to operate, not BB's fantasy world where everyone has a pristine image
sitting on the shelf. Which makes *his* position spurious.

Dustin (and me to a lesser extent) has the necessary skills to recover a
system in most cases. BB does not. That's why his only tool is an image
(hammer) and he applies it to every scenario (nail) no matter how
inappropriate.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:23:16 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 1/29/2013 10:37 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:29:07 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/29/2013 10:14 AM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:50:15 -0600, telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have won this one, Mr. Bear, this time. Dustin made some valid
>>>>> points, but they were spurious to the theme.
>>>>
>>>> Another self appointed dickhead.
>>>>
>>> perhaps your right, but I read it through and that is my opinion. and I
>>> think maybe you too are also kind of a dickhead :)
>>
>> So explain how imaging stops your data getting into the hands of people
>> you don't want it to?
>
>It doesn't and it is so obvious. Its a false point, spurious and off.
>
>>
>> It doesn't fulfil that criteria at all. It doesn't combat malware. It
>> isn't a solution for that problem.
>
>No it doesn't. Its recovery from malware or other horrible thing, gets
>you back to normal/fresh state. I mean you could pick the peanuts out
>of poop to eat, but its better just to have fresh ones.
>
>>
>> *IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*
>
>Actually its the first thing to do, or other suitable backup scheme.

You just don't get it do you.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a recovery procedure. I'm saying.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

and it shouldn't be touted as one.

Understand this.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

*IT DOES NOTHING TO CONTROL ACCESS TO YOUR DATA*

Therefore.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

No matter how many times you repeat your bullshit know this.

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

Therefore, before you connect to the Internet, have a security plan, and
implement *SECURITY MEASURES* such as

Install an AV suite

Install the latest service pack

Don't go anywhere else on the web before you have completed Windows
updates, and AV updates, and rebooted.

and so on.

and remember

*IMAGING ISN'T A SECURITY MEASURE*

*IT DOES NOTHING TO CONTROL ACCESS TO YOUR DATA*

>Most folks buy a computer and use some security software and then
>contaminate their machine until it stops. With-out a way to get it back
>to a fresh working install, they are fuqued... The articles we have had
>posted to this group show that none of the monolithic computer
>protection anti-* programs work against whats out there in even most
>cases, so ...
>
>It just doesn't seem so hard to me.
>
>>

--

p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,

[telsar]

On 1/29/2013 11:34 AM, Mark Warner wrote:
> telsar wrote:
>>
>> Most folks buy a computer and use some security software and then
>> contaminate their machine until it stops. With-out a way to get it back
>> to a fresh working install, they are fuqued...
>
> Exactly. That's how it works in the *real* *world* where most of us have
> to operate, not BB's fantasy world where everyone has a pristine image
> sitting on the shelf. Which makes *his* position spurious.
>
> Dustin (and me to a lesser extent) has the necessary skills to recover a
> system in most cases. BB does not. That's why his only tool is an image
> (hammer) and he applies it to every scenario (nail) no matter how
> inappropriate.
>

Perhaps so, but it seems as though he has more than that going on.

I have spent many hours over the years trying to fix fuqed up stuff with
various results. I have really nothing better to do anyway. When "she
who must be obeyed" starts screaming, I just start over. Its timing is
predictable.

I don't image anymore. I have and then when I need to restore I get
some weird error and then start from scratch as my old fuqed up image is
gone by this point. But, I don't have a bunch of extra disks laying
around to use, just some space on another machine. I should probably
try one of the contemporary free imagers that I see mentioned in here
and try again after my next start over. It may work better than getting
a weird error in the middle of loading the backup image file.

My significant other excels at getting various unwanted things installed
on our little lappy in winxp sp3 + updates. So far just using MSE keeps
her not screaming about slowness and so far hasn't destroyed the
installation to the point of being unusable. But, we will see. Its
better to install and run MSE than to install and disable Avira, at
least so far.

But if I lose everything, I will just start over and it takes less and
less time, each time I do it.

I keep my important stuff on several thumb drives and its really not
much data. The rest is some programs which are easy to get and install,
especially using Soft2base or one of the other free software installers.

The lappy has a Bohdi couple of partitions that I use with clam-av on
it. Thats what I use when I use the lappy, usually to watch stuff with
VLC. Its install and setup took about 1 hour, configured the way I
wanted it. winxp sp3 and all the updates and software is a day enterprise.

[telsar]

pooh lets put it this way.


*SECURITY PLAN*

1. Make pristine backup of new system
2. Do Security Measures
3. Do First --> Create "Security Procedures and Controls" Document
4. Do Second --> Get Audit Committee to approve "Security Procedures and
Controls"
5. Do Third --> Implement "Security Procedures and Controls"
6. Skip number 1 and 2.

I think we already had a thread on this where I spanked you.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

Excellent, it really makes sense to do a backup first. Then if you ever
recover you can waste your time repeating yourself.

>3. Do First --> Create "Security Procedures and Controls" Document
>4. Do Second --> Get Audit Committee to approve "Security Procedures and
>Controls"
>5. Do Third --> Implement "Security Procedures and Controls"
>6. Skip number 1 and 2.

*TELSAR'S FANTASY WORLD*

>I think we already had a thread on this where I spanked you.

--

[Mark Warner]

telsar wrote:
> Mark Warner wrote:
>> telsar wrote:
>>> Most folks buy a computer and use some security software and then
>>> contaminate their machine until it stops. With-out a way to get it back
>>> to a fresh working install, they are fuqued...
>> Exactly. That's how it works in the *real* *world* where most of us have
>> to operate, not BB's fantasy world where everyone has a pristine image
>> sitting on the shelf. Which makes *his* position spurious.
>>
>> Dustin (and me to a lesser extent) has the necessary skills to recover a
>> system in most cases. BB does not. That's why his only tool is an image
>> (hammer) and he applies it to every scenario (nail) no matter how
>> inappropriate.
>
> Perhaps so, but it seems as though he has more than that going on.

No, he doesn't. Sans an image to load, he couldn't repair a badly
infested machine if his life depended on it. But Bear being Bear, rather
than just say he's not proficient in the area, he has to claim he is,
claim his imaging protocol is the only way to go, and characterize those
of us that *are* capable of making repairs without reverting to an image
or "flattening and restaging" as dishonorable.

--
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Bear]

Mark Warner <mhwarner.i...@gmail.com> wrote in news:amm7prF2fjgU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Bear wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
>>>
>>> The skills I have are useful for a wide variety of IT related tasks. I
>>> can fix things onsite without the benefit of other software. That
>>> doesn't necessarily make me smarter or dumber than anyone else. It
>>> simply makes me well trained/educated/whatever and prepared. Take it
>>> how you will.
>>
>> Heh, you can't fix a machine reliably to a known clean state. It's
>> impossible to the point of time expended to do so relative to time it
>> takes to know so.
>
> Is English your second language?

Why do you ask?

Jax!
--
Bear Bottoms
http://bearware.info

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA15735F3A44A2be...@130.225.254.104:

> I don't think anyone missed my point. I certainly didn't miss yours.
> You act as if there is a reliable way to prevent malware compromises.
> There is not. Correcting the problem which allowed the malware to get
> on the machine is impossible. What you mean by saying that, is stupid
> end- users, or putting better prevention tools on board, or hardening
> your system etc. Even after the best attempts at doing so, it is
> never bullet proof.

Wrong. You can prevent malware infections. These machines have been
malware free for years, despite the fact I run live samples from time to
time. It's all about the environmental controls, Bear.

And it's completely possible to correct the problem which affected the
machine in the first place as long as you know or can find out what the
problem was.

> That is just wrong Dustin...back-asswards. Never image a system that
> has been used in the wild except under very controlled circumstances
> such as MS and program updates or installs. Installs can be a problem

This makes imaging rather pointless. I want to be able to go back to a
point where everything "worked" If I lose a hard disk, I wanna just
reload what I have now. A clean image seems silly for that.

> Now you are reaching. Even with machines that come with system
> factory images on the hard drive are unreliable besides usually very
> outdated. Make your own when you first purchase a machine, or if you
> didn't do so, restage and start over and make your image. Never rely
> on factory restoration software that resides on your hard drive, or
> even factory restoration discs. Make and update your own system
> images.

I wasn't reaching for anything, merely pointing out one support example
I've run into. Evidently, you don't do as much support as you've
claimed.

> I always get factory restoration media (usually CD/DVDs) when I
> purchase a machine as a last ditch standby. If they don't work, order
> some more. CD/DVD's can be very unreliable and I do not recommend

That doesn't help if the software program on the cd/dvd media is the
problem; not a defective disc. As is the case with the HP model I listed
for you. You can order a thousand copies, none of them will ever work;
they have a bug which results in them not properly IDing the machine and
so refusing to load anything on it.

> setup. It is very easy for end-users once shown how to do it, or for
> those who take the time to learn it.

No offense, but you can't even get a typical end user to update his/her
antivirus/am and java. It would really be pushing it to expect them to
follow a backup procedure.

> You don't teach them to fish though do you. You fix their machine,
> take their money and tell them not to be so stupid next time - bye
> bye.

No, I don't just take their money and leave. I explain what happened,
and what they should/shouldn't be doing so this doesn't happen again. If
they follow my advice, they should have no worries for a long time. If
like you, they "know more", they won't and I soon get to make more
money.

[Dustin]

telsar <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:ke8r3i$fbp$1...@dont-email.me:

I think I've now proven that you don't really know the same IT things as
I do. As Mr Bear made claims which are simply not true, and you agree
with them. Sorry, but I don't care how long you've been doing this; you
can't compete with me.

[Bear]

"p-0'0-h the cat" <super...@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote in
news:vpdfg816d8qucsivm...@4ax.com:

> Use Linux.
>
> Run in the context of a user account.
>
> Install an AV suite.
>
> Use the windows firewall, and a router.
>
> Use a filtered email feed.
>
> Keep your OS updated.
>
> Keep your applications updated.
>
> Use a modern Windows OS and hardware and benefit from tech like DEP,
> ASLR etc
>
> and don't be stupid. Don't click on anything you haven't checked out.
> Use ACF, forums, upload anything new to Jotti, and test in a VM, before
> you install it.

None of which is bullet proof. It is impossible.

[cully when]

I started in the business when computers were known as Univacs and
before IT was coined. Security has always been about AUTHORIZED access
to the computer, be it mainframe, mini or PC. I no longer have current
expertise in security having retired several years back but there is a
reasonable method to securing a PC with internet access. If you use a
decent router between your PC(s) and the internet, shut off all unused
ports, carefully check all software you download and install, and stay
away from dubious sites; you do have a decent chance of minimizing
attacks on your system(s).

There are probably many attacks I couldn't handle or fix, but I have
been fortunate. I do use quality imaging software for both data and OS.
I find that OS backups come in handy when I accidentally screw up the
system through installing badly behaved software and have had to reload
from backup twice in the last seven years. Backups ARE NOT a protection
against malware. Backups ARE protection against hardware failure and OS
failure due to badly behaving software.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On 29 Jan 2013 23:00:11 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>"p-0'0-h the cat" <super...@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote in
>news:vpdfg816d8qucsivm...@4ax.com:
>
>> Use Linux.
>>
>> Run in the context of a user account.
>>
>> Install an AV suite.
>>
>> Use the windows firewall, and a router.
>>
>> Use a filtered email feed.
>>
>> Keep your OS updated.
>>
>> Keep your applications updated.
>>
>> Use a modern Windows OS and hardware and benefit from tech like DEP,
>> ASLR etc
>>
>> and don't be stupid. Don't click on anything you haven't checked out.
>> Use ACF, forums, upload anything new to Jotti, and test in a VM, before
>> you install it.
>
>None of which is bullet proof. It is impossible.

I don't buy private healthcare and then drive around like a silly fuck
declaring private healthcare is the most important thing to have before
you go on the road. Private healthcare is NOT a safety measure. Putting
on seatbelts, driving within speed limits, having a modern well
maintained car with ABS and airbags etc etc ARE safety measures.

Do you understand the similarity. I doubt it.

[Bear]

Mark Warner <mhwarner.i...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:amqs4e...@mid.individual.net:

You mischaracterize it as a charlatan always does. You are a Shyster
Mark. Self admitted. Exactly what I said is after you clean a machine,
you hand it back and take the money, knowing you'll get repeat business.
That is how a Shyster does it.

I get a machine, clean it, or restage it depending on the level of
infections, image it and hand it back. I tell them to take the money and
buy one or two external hard drives. I load Macrium Reflect on their
machine, make a boot CD for them, showing them how to do it. Have them
make an image and boot to the CD and reload the image. I rarely get
repeats. I do get appreciative calls the next time they have an issue
and how they happily fixed it themselves. On occassion I have to help
them again with how to restore.

There is a big difference between our service. Yes, I can clean a
machine. I've been doing it for many years. I do however highly
recommend a complete restage in the near future and set up an imaging
plan.

That does many things and prevents the gunk that builds up over time.
Fresh, fast and clean. It's how I roll :)

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157B36F8C01FB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Sorry, but I don't care how long you've been doing this; you
> can't compete with me.
>

Now that's the Dustin we know and love. :)

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157B332C6A7DB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA15735F3A44A2be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> I don't think anyone missed my point. I certainly didn't miss yours.
>> You act as if there is a reliable way to prevent malware compromises.
>> There is not. Correcting the problem which allowed the malware to get
>> on the machine is impossible. What you mean by saying that, is stupid
>> end- users, or putting better prevention tools on board, or hardening
>> your system etc. Even after the best attempts at doing so, it is
>> never bullet proof.
>
> Wrong. You can prevent malware infections. These machines have been
> malware free for years, despite the fact I run live samples from time
> to time. It's all about the environmental controls, Bear.

I'm not talking about you or I. I don't get infections either. Most end-
users are not that savy. I help them - truly help.

>
> And it's completely possible to correct the problem which affected the
> machine in the first place as long as you know or can find out what
> the problem was.

Yes but it takes hours on a very badly infected machine. Why bother. It
is very difficult to be certain also.
snip.

>
>> You don't teach them to fish though do you. You fix their machine,
>> take their money and tell them not to be so stupid next time - bye
>> bye.
>
> No, I don't just take their money and leave. I explain what happened,
> and what they should/shouldn't be doing so this doesn't happen again.
> If they follow my advice, they should have no worries for a long time.
> If like you, they "know more", they won't and I soon get to make more
> money.
>

That is simply wrong and disingenuous which is your nature. You had
better re-read this statement you just made.

Most malware today is injected through websites visited. What, you tell
them not to surf?

What can you tell them that will reliably prevent an injection...only go
to websites they know are safe? Hell, those get hacked too.

Tuck your tail Dustin. You are way out of your league here.

[Mrs.Jax Haberdasher]

On Jan 29, 3:35 pm, Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalker.wheres.my.bi...@huh.com> wrote innews:XnsA157B332C6A7DB7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
> > Bear <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote in

> Bearhttp://bearware.info
> Header Path:
> news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
> mail

Bear, now that you drove off Jax, who is adjusting your buttplug? Is
your arsch washed by someone like Jax used to do? Who is that? Do
you still wear the Pink Badge of Gaity, for self admitted gays? Are
you forging now? Are you a scriptkiddie? Tell us Bear, do
tell!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bear]

cully when <cull...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ke9k9v$mhr$1
@news.albasani.net:

> and stay
> away from dubious sites; you do have a decent chance of minimizing
> attacks on your system(s).

How does one propose to do that when any legitimate site can be hacked?

This sleep inducing sing song always gurgitated is a cop out. You cannot
reliably protect your computer unless you just don't connect to the
Internet. Period.

If or once you get compromised, you either have the means to recover
yourself or you hire someone else to do it for you.

In most cases, anyone can easily do this themselves. No data is lost and
the computer is put back to a known clean state.

All the rest of the hoopla is just that.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157B172C4D1Dbe...@130.225.254.104:

> There is a big difference between our service. Yes, I can clean a
> machine. I've been doing it for many years. I do however highly
> recommend a complete restage in the near future and set up an imaging
> plan.

Okay then...

Customer has lojack on his laptop. Customer lost removal disc.

Wants you to remove lojack without messing up his laptop.

Please list the steps and software you will need to complete this "clean
up"

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157B2E8399DAbe...@130.225.254.104:

> I'm not talking about you or I. I don't get infections either. Most
> end- users are not that savy. I help them - truly help.

Bullshit.

> Yes but it takes hours on a very badly infected machine. Why bother.
> It is very difficult to be certain also.

With the right tools, it doesn't. And it's not very difficult, again
with the right tools, knowledge and information.

> snip.
>>
>>> You don't teach them to fish though do you. You fix their machine,
>>> take their money and tell them not to be so stupid next time - bye
>>> bye.
>>
>> No, I don't just take their money and leave. I explain what
>> happened, and what they should/shouldn't be doing so this doesn't
>> happen again. If they follow my advice, they should have no worries
>> for a long time. If like you, they "know more", they won't and I
>> soon get to make more money.
>>
> That is simply wrong and disingenuous which is your nature. You had
> better re-read this statement you just made.

What's wrong with the statement I just made?

> Most malware today is injected through websites visited. What, you
> tell them not to surf?

Most of those injections come from well known and often patched browser
vulnerabilities Bear. Most of those issues can be resolved so that it
doesn't happen again or atleast as often. Hell, I even teach them to
sandbox the webbrowser; so if something bad does happen, it's not going
anywhere.

> What can you tell them that will reliably prevent an injection...only
> go to websites they know are safe? Hell, those get hacked too.

No.

I suggest sandboxie. Run your browser inside of it.

> Tuck your tail Dustin. You are way out of your league here.

Excuse me? I'm an expert on malware. This is hardly out of my league.
It's right up my alley.

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157E41DD6C34B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

OK, so why cop out on my challenge?

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157D9098D16be...@130.225.254.104:

What challenge Bear? This is quid pro quo. I'm not going to answer my
own fucking question. I asked YOU to tell ME what happens in order from
the time you hit power. I even went real basic on you and asked some
specific hardware questions.

Which wires on the atx connector will start the power supply if
connected?

How many volts are present on those wires?

How many volts are present on the atx switch? Is it ac or dc bear?

See, even more simple questions you can't answer.

Did you like my simple save the users ass fix? Sandboxie? Didn't think
of that one eh? :)

[Bear]

Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
news:XnsA157E687B6101B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:

> Did you like my simple save the users ass fix? Sandboxie? Didn't think
> of that one eh? :)

Sandboxie is also not bullet proof. Damn Dustin...for all of your flaunting
about how great you are, all you can come up with is load the user up with
crapware?

Anti-Malware tools should all come with a disclaimer "Almost good enough."

Use anti-virus (maybe two or three in manual modes), several anti-spyware
tools, manual scanners (because one won't catch em all - hell 20 won't
catch em all) Sandboxes, VMs, etc. etc. etc. Talk about time consuming and
bloat and system load...sheesh.

I run a fast, clean, light machine with MS Firewall and a simple AV with
Chrome browser. It works. Nothing ever happens, but if it did - no worries.

Nothing you have come up with is good enough Dustin. Amateur or
Shyster...you pick.

[John Corliss (ES)]

cully when wrote:
> Backups ARE NOT a protection against malware.

No, they won't protect you against malware in that they they seek out
and destroy it, but backups are a vital part of defending yourself
against the problem. Without a good backup system in place, your in a
very bad position.

Your remark is simply a semantics criticism.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares, OR warez for me, please: just
freeware- which I define as legally obtainable, local install computer
programs that can be used indefinitely at no cost, monetary or otherwise.

Simply filtering out any message with b7r7tn in the "From" header will
remove an incredible amount of the trolling from this group for you.

[John Corliss (ES)]

John Corliss (ES) wrote:
> cully when wrote:
>> Backups ARE NOT a protection against malware.
>
> No, they won't protect you against malware in that they they seek out
> and destroy it, but backups are a vital part of defending yourself
> against the problem. Without a good backup system in place, your in a
> very bad position.
>
> Your remark is simply a semantics criticism.
>

Egad how poorly typed. Allow me to revise that:

No, they won't protect you against malware in that they won't seek out

and destroy it, but backups are a vital part of defending yourself

against the problem. Without a good backup system in place and your data
safely backed up, you're in a very bad position.

Your remark is simply a semantics criticism. However, in the context of
other discussions here in ACF I can see why you made it.

[p-0'0-h the cat]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 03:03:24 -0800, "John Corliss (ES)"
<q34w...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>cully when wrote:
>> Backups ARE NOT a protection against malware.
>
>No, they won't protect you against malware in that they they seek out
>and destroy it, but backups are a vital part of defending yourself
>against the problem. Without a good backup system in place, your in a
>very bad position.
>
>Your remark is simply a semantics criticism.

I disagree. It's standard industry practice. Backup is not a security
measure.

That doesn't mean it's not done, or recommended. Backup is just not
about access control, and it's just confusing, unhelpful, and misleading
to bring it into the equation.

That's the point here. Bear is touting imaging as protection against
malware, and it's not. It's about recovery. It's just misleading to
newbies, a.k.a a dangerous position to take.

Security is security, and backup is backup. Both need to be done, and
neither satisfies the need for the other.

--
p-0.0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,

the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,

[telsar]

On 1/29/2013 5:17 PM, p-0'0-h the cat wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2013 23:00:11 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> "p-0'0-h the cat" <super...@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote in
>> news:vpdfg816d8qucsivm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Use Linux.
>>>
>>> Run in the context of a user account.
>>>
>>> Install an AV suite.
>>>
>>> Use the windows firewall, and a router.
>>>
>>> Use a filtered email feed.
>>>
>>> Keep your OS updated.
>>>
>>> Keep your applications updated.
>>>
>>> Use a modern Windows OS and hardware and benefit from tech like DEP,
>>> ASLR etc
>>>
>>> and don't be stupid. Don't click on anything you haven't checked out.
>>> Use ACF, forums, upload anything new to Jotti, and test in a VM, before
>>> you install it.
>>
>> None of which is bullet proof. It is impossible.
>
> I don't buy private healthcare and then drive around like a silly fuck
> declaring private healthcare is the most important thing to have before
> you go on the road. Private healthcare is NOT a safety measure. Putting
> on seatbelts, driving within speed limits, having a modern well
> maintained car with ABS and airbags etc etc ARE safety measures.
>
> Do you understand the similarity. I doubt it.
>

A wonderful example.

[Mark Warner]

Bear wrote:
>
> I get a machine, clean it, or restage it depending on the level of
> infections,

At what "level of infections" do you throw up your hands and "restage"?

[telsar]

On 1/29/2013 6:09 PM, Bear wrote:
> cully when <cull...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ke9k9v$mhr$1
> @news.albasani.net:
>
>> and stay
>> away from dubious sites; you do have a decent chance of minimizing
>> attacks on your system(s).
>
> How does one propose to do that when any legitimate site can be hacked?

tru dat. Thats where my significant screamer gets most of her unwanted
stuff, usually news sites.

>
> This sleep inducing sing song always gurgitated is a cop out. You cannot
> reliably protect your computer unless you just don't connect to the
> Internet. Period.

True and even then if your not careful, bang.

>
> If or once you get compromised, you either have the means to recover
> yourself or you hire someone else to do it for you.
>
> In most cases, anyone can easily do this themselves. No data is lost and
> the computer is put back to a known clean state.
>
> All the rest of the hoopla is just that.
>


--

[telsar]

Remember, where you work their entire business plans about their
business, data, and system are:

"Trust Pooh and don't worry about it" :)

I accept your apology.

[telsar]

If you keep your machines safe from harm, then no harm will ever come to
them. That was always the best way to do it in a business environment.
It used to be as simple as limiting access and privileges. What really
changed the world was hooking the Internet up to too much without the
ability to limit access, and of course, bugs to allow unlimited access
and privileges. Of course the social engineering issue has not changed
and still is the easiest, fastest, and care free way to get access and
privileges. Girls are great at this.

[telsar]

On 1/30/2013 4:19 AM, Bear wrote:
> Dustin <calling.my.stalke...@huh.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA157E687B6101B7Z317AGDTEHHI8AJ283@no:
>
>> Did you like my simple save the users ass fix? Sandboxie? Didn't think
>> of that one eh? :)
>
> Sandboxie is also not bullet proof. Damn Dustin...for all of your flaunting
> about how great you are, all you can come up with is load the user up with
> crapware?
>
> Anti-Malware tools should all come with a disclaimer "Almost good enough."
>
> Use anti-virus (maybe two or three in manual modes), several anti-spyware
> tools, manual scanners (because one won't catch em all - hell 20 won't
> catch em all) Sandboxes, VMs, etc. etc. etc. Talk about time consuming and
> bloat and system load...sheesh.
>
> I run a fast, clean, light machine with MS Firewall and a simple AV with
> Chrome browser. It works. Nothing ever happens, but if it did - no worries.
>
> Nothing you have come up with is good enough Dustin. Amateur or
> Shyster...you pick.
>

I suggest, cleaning up after an infection of webroot client without the
password unless someone knows something better than that. A laptop with
software controlled boot control would be best if you have one of those.

[Bear]

"p-0'0-h the cat" <super...@furryfreeware.invalid> wrote in

news:jq0ig8hs83ho0ufdo...@4ax.com:

> That's the point here. Bear is touting imaging as protection against
> malware, and it's not. It's about recovery. It's just misleading to
> newbies, a.k.a a dangerous position to take.

That is a lie Pooh - straight up. It /is/ a an important part of a security
plan however. Imaging is a means of recovery from most compromises which
would baffle many end-users and require them to seek help if they didn't
have the ability to easily recover there system to a clean state.

Imaging isn't just that. A well organized plan will keep your system clean
and fresh...malware or not. It is the single most important skill an end-
user can adopt to gain self control of his system...malware or not.

I have explained this to you many times, yet you continue to insist I claim
imaging is protection against malware (a deliberate attempt).

However, in an indirect sense it is with respect to getting rid of malware
on a system...it certainly will do that in an indirect manner. Is it an
important part of a security plan...most definitely.

[Dustin]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1582C0C5EA43be...@130.225.254.104:

> Sandboxie is also not bullet proof. Damn Dustin...for all of your
> flaunting about how great you are, all you can come up with is load
> the user up with crapware?

I know sandboxie isn't bullet proof, Bear. I've written exploits for it
myself and provided them to it's author for repairs to be made.
Sandboxie's response time to new issues is damn fast. The author is an
excellent coder. Sandboxie is by no means, crapware. It's a reputable app,
Bear. It's called a layered defense.

> Use anti-virus (maybe two or three in manual modes), several
> anti-spyware tools, manual scanners (because one won't catch em all -
> hell 20 won't catch em all) Sandboxes, VMs, etc. etc. etc. Talk about
> time consuming and bloat and system load...sheesh.

That's because you really don't understand the malware issue.

> Nothing you have come up with is good enough Dustin. Amateur or

Neither, thanks. I'm a professional. And yourself?