Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
~BD~
Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
**********************************
See post number 3 - here:-
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
--
Dave
Dustin Cook
news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
Yay! Thank God... :)
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
Bullwinkle
Stop Cross posting, you are a virus.
"~BD~" <Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in message
news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com...
Jenn
news:Xns9D699D22DBD...@69.16.185.250...
> ~BD~ <Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>
>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>
>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>> **********************************
>>
>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>
>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>
>
> Yay! Thank God... :)
Is it time to par-tay!! :D hahaha
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
FromTheRafters
news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com...
It must be a very simple application indeed to be 100% safe.
I would say that the programmers are probably 100% well intentioned.
(is McAfee 100% safe?)
David H. Lipman
>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
| (is McAfee 100% safe?)
I truly think that logic would be above his capability.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
FromTheRafters
news:hrdbn...@news6.newsguy.com...
> From: "FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org>
>
> | "~BD~" <Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in message
> | news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com...
>>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>
>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>> **********************************
>
>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>
>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>
> | It must be a very simple application indeed to be 100% safe.
>
> | I would say that the programmers are probably 100% well intentioned.
>
> | (is McAfee 100% safe?)
>
>
>
> I truly think that logic would be above his capability.
Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid - just annoying as all hell. :oD
Even well intentioned programmers can introduce unsafe implementations
of ... say ... decompression algorithms, into a scanner, making zip
files or rar files into DoS trojans or worse. It has been seen before as
you know.
That 100% gets tossed around so much that one would think that it is the
"new math" that makes 100 the same as less than 100. :o)
~BD~
FromTheRafters wrote:
>
> Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid
That's good to know! :)
> - just annoying as all hell. :oD
Name two things which I do which you find annoying - if necessary,
please explain why so. I *may* change what I do!
Now .......
Here's an item for you to get your teeth into, FTR!
It's an extract from a thread I once started here:-
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=50275&st=40
(this is post No 46)
**
Performing a standard Disk Format and Reinstall of the Operating System
will render common infections incompatible, but not all Rootkits and its
accompanying payload of malware..... Rootkits work from outside the
Operating System and can hide in Bad Sectors of the Hard Disk thus have
places to hide on the Hard Disk that are essentially outside the
Operating Systems environment, untouchable by it, yet still at hand.
Most wiping, erasing, formatting, and partitioning tools will not
overwrite logical bad sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and
their accompanying payload of malware behind and still active.
Rootkits in themselves are not a threat.....the danger is that Rootkits
have the invincible power of Stealth.....Malicious Programmers can hide
their malware safely inside the protection of the Rootkit.
Rootkits reside in the Root of things, thus the name 'Root' that service
as an protective container for the accompanying payload of malware, or
on the bright side, the accompanying payload of Software Code with
productive, safe intentions, together they are a 'KIT'.....thus the name
'ROOTKIT'.....and Rootkits are not a joke.
Once the Computer is compromised by an Rootkit with its accompanying
payload of malware, all files in the System can not be trusted and are
likely infected..... this includes all the System files, Software,
backups, removable disks, and restore points..... Rootkits can not only
hide themselves in Bad Sectors of Hard Disks, they can also hide
themselves in the Boot Sectors of Hard Disks, CD/DVD, and Floppy
Disks..... Rootkits can also hide in the Firmware of Hardware
Components, in the BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM or Alternate
Data Streams.....
Rootkits hide their processes, files, and folders by using sophisticated
hooking and filtering techniques. As a result, traditional methods of
viewing the system state typically return no indication of foul
play.....the Rootkit makes sure of that.
When an Rootkit is cloaked, system utilities such as Task Manager,
Regedit, will not be able to expose the processes and Registry data that
should betray the presence of the Rootkit. The lurking Rootkit files
will not be viewable in Windows Explorer or even via the command
line.....The Rootkit needs to be uncloaked, in return the
Malware Components it was hiding become uncloaked as well.....
Removing an Rootkit is an two step process:
1). Uncloaking and removing the Rootkit.....this step involves using
special Software tools that can find the Rootkit and remove it.
2). Removing the malware payload associated with the Rootkit.....this
step normally uses conventional security programs such as Anti-Virus,
Anti-Trojan, and Anti-Spyware scanners. This step may also involve
manual deletion of some stubborn Rootkit components.
Some helpful tools to help detect and remove Rootkits are:
RootkitRevealer by Microsoft, Rootkit_Detective by McAfee, BlackLight by
F-Secure, UnHackMe by Greatis, AVG Anti-rootkit by Grisoft to name a
few.....
-drdos
*************
I'd be most interested to discuss these comments of drdos further - you
will note that the thread was closed by the moderator shortly after we
reached this stage!
In particular, do you agree that "Rootkits can also hide in the Firmware
of Hardware Components, in the BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM or
Alternate Data Streams....." ?
Like Dustin Cook, I've always been a 'detail' person too! <vbg>
--
Dave
---
* Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out free usenet!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
David H. Lipman
FUD post !
There is NO malware that infects are resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card
EEPROM.
David H. Lipman
| From: "~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
| FUD post !
| There is NO malware that infects are resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard or
| Video-card
| EEPROM.
That should have been...
"...that infects or resides within..."
~BD~
> From: "David H. Lipman"<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
>
> | From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | FUD post !
>
> | There is NO malware that infects are resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard or
> | Video-card
> | EEPROM.
>
>
> That should have been...
> "...that infects or resides within..."
>
>
>
information on a well known technical forum saying one thing ....... and
Mr David H Lipman (whoever he may *really* be!) making a post on Usenet
groups claiming that the original poster is wrong.
Take a step outside the box, David.
How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of who
is actually telling the truth?
I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no supporting
evidence to that effect - is there?
Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying payload
of malware behind and still active."?
If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling an
operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and Nuke?
http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boot-and-Nuke-for-CD-and-DVD/3000-2094_4-10151762.html
Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply use
a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
--
Dave
Dustin Cook
news:7ridndLhg8MJXkfW...@bt.com:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "David H. Lipman"<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
>>
>> | From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>>
>> | FUD post !
>>
>> | There is NO malware that infects are resides within the; BIOS,
>> | Motherboard or Video-card
>> | EEPROM.
>>
>>
>> That should have been...
>> "...that infects or resides within..."
>>
>>
>>
> So now we are in a situation where someone (drdos) has posted
> information on a well known technical forum saying one thing .......
> and Mr David H Lipman (whoever he may *really* be!) making a post on
> Usenet groups claiming that the original poster is wrong.
If the article claims an infection in the bios or eeprom vs corruption;
then the article is indeed, wrong. BD.
> Take a step outside the box, David.
Google bios and eeproms David. You might find it somewhat enlightening.
> How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of who
> is actually telling the truth?
By doing their own research into the matter?
> I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no supporting
> evidence to that effect - is there?
See above. Google really is your friend.
> Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
> disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
> formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
> sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying
> payload of malware behind and still active."?
behind, possibly; active.. no.
> If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling
> an operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and Nuke?
> http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boot-and-Nuke-for-CD-and-DVD/3000-2094
> _4-10151762.html
If it does sector overwrites (and I believe it can be configured to do
so) yes.
> Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
FDISK is a partitioning tool. it doesn't address sectors marked as bad.
> Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply
> use a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
If the system disc is clean and initializes the bootsector with clean
code, bye bye rootkit. Assuming it was an MBR based one.
David H. Lipman
| So now we are in a situation where someone (drdos) has posted
| information on a well known technical forum saying one thing ....... and
| Mr David H Lipman (whoever he may *really* be!) making a post on Usenet
| groups claiming that the original poster is wrong.
| Take a step outside the box, David.
| How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of who
| is actually telling the truth?
| I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no supporting
| evidence to that effect - is there?
| Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
| disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
| formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
| sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying payload
| of malware behind and still active."?
| If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling an
| operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and Nuke?
| http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boot-and-Nuke-for-CD-and-DVD/3000-2094_4-10151762.html
| Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
| Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply use
| a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
| --
| Dave
Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard
or Video-card.
**And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he could introduce malware
into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
There is not taking a step outside the box. This is the reality.
There is NO malware that infects or resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
FromTheRafters
news:RbSdnY3dLah7CUfW...@bt.com...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid
>
> That's good to know! :)
>
>> - just annoying as all hell. :oD
>
> Name two things which I do which you find annoying - if necessary,
> please explain why so. I *may* change what I do!
1) Introducing your personal vendetta against PF whenever it suits you.
2) Needlessly crossposting your posts, even when from within another's
thread and transplanting posts from other places and posting off topic
and getting too obsessed with having other people's personal information
and practically *demanding* that others assuage any personal "hinky
feeling" you may have and ... well ... that's enough for number two.
> Now .......
>
> Here's an item for you to get your teeth into, FTR!
>
> It's an extract from a thread I once started here:-
>
> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=50275&st=40
>
> (this is post No 46)
> Performing a standard Disk Format and Reinstall of the Operating
> System
> will render common infections incompatible,
Incompatible with what?
> but not all Rootkits and its accompanying payload of malware.....
???
Had this person posted here, there would have been opposing viewpoints
voiced, I haven't visited that forum, so I don't know what went on
there.
> Rootkits work from outside the Operating System
There are user mode and kernel mode rootkits - how is that considered
"outside" the OS?
I might agree with *some* rootkits work from outside the OS (VM or
hypervisor based perhaps?)
> and can hide in Bad Sectors of the Hard Disk thus have places to hide
> on the Hard Disk that are essentially outside the Operating Systems
> environment, untouchable by it, yet still at hand.
There are many places to hide stuff, that doesn't mean it is code that
can be invoked or otherwise executed.
> Most wiping, erasing, formatting, and partitioning tools will not
> overwrite logical bad sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and
> their accompanying payload of malware behind and still active.
Usually, such tactics render the malware "headless" and as such it is
not *active*.
[...]
> Rootkits reside in the Root of things, thus the name 'Root' that
> service as an protective container for the accompanying payload of
> malware, or on the bright side, the accompanying payload of Software
> Code with productive, safe intentions, together they are a
> 'KIT'.....thus the name 'ROOTKIT'.....and Rootkits are not a joke.
Rootkit's used to be a collection of programs that an attacker could use
to replace tools with trojanized versions - once having obtained root
privileges. Now they are mostly just filter drivers to filter out
information that is being made available to such tools.
> Once the Computer is compromised by an Rootkit with its accompanying
> payload of malware, all files in the System can not be trusted and are
> likely infected.....
Why infect programs when you can install malware in a stealthed
(filtered) condition?
When you have the system as host, there is little reason to also use a
program to host code.
[...]
> Rootkits can also hide in the Firmware of Hardware Components, in the
> BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM or Alternate Data Streams.....
There is room for "bad code" in those places. There may even be enough
room for enough code to actually function as a starting point for the
implementation of a rootkit (or other malicious functions). Having
*only* a starting point is not enough to qualify it as a rootkit.
> Rootkits hide their processes, files, and folders by using
> sophisticated hooking and filtering techniques. As a result,
> traditional methods of viewing the system state typically return no
> indication of foul play.....the Rootkit makes sure of that.
A rootkit might also cease doing the cloaking if it detects that a
rootkit detector is executing.
[...]
> *************
>
> I'd be most interested to discuss these comments of drdos further -
> you will note that the thread was closed by the moderator shortly
> after we reached this stage!
I'll just accept that as a fact, no need to go there.
> In particular, do you agree that "Rootkits can also hide in the
> Firmware of Hardware Components, in the BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card
> EEPROM or Alternate Data Streams....." ?
I'll agree that subversive code could hide in there, but that's a long
way from saying a rootkit or virus could launch from there.
[...]
~BD~
Dustin Cook wrote:
>
> If the article claims an infection in the bios or eeprom vs corruption;
> then the article is indeed, wrong. BD.
Thank you, Dustin.
>> Take a step outside the box, David.
>
> Google bios and eeproms David. You might find it somewhat enlightening.
I've done much research!
>> How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of who
>> is actually telling the truth?
>
> By doing their own research into the matter?
On Usenet there is absolutely no way of telling who is telling the truth
AFAICT. I know much about you and, in spite of what you may think I
thought (!) I'm quite sure that you a real young man with a mom and a
family.
I know absolutely *nothing* about David H. Lipman, save for the fact
that he thinks he is God's gift to Usenet and is a contributor at
Malwarebytes forums. His English is poor and he has little understanding
of human nature.
>> I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no supporting
>> evidence to that effect - is there?
>
> See above. Google really is your friend.
I find nothing about the personal/professional life of Mr Lipman.
Quote:
1. The "False Authority Syndrome"
Don't believe everything. Some people talk or write about viruses as if
they were an authority in this field, but in fact they are often not.
Ref: http://www.claymania.com/info-fas.html
>> Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
>> disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
>> formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
>> sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying
>> payload of malware behind and still active."?
>
> behind, possibly; active.. no.
OK - possible to be reactivated once back on-line?
>> If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling
>> an operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and Nuke?
>> http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boot-and-Nuke-for-CD-and-DVD/3000-2094
>> _4-10151762.html
>
> If it does sector overwrites (and I believe it can be configured to do
> so) yes.
That was my understanding. Thanks.
>> Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
>
> FDISK is a partitioning tool. it doesn't address sectors marked as bad.
At that link it says - quote:-
"When you run the fdisk command to create, delete, or change a
partition, all of the data on that partition is permanently deleted".
I've always understood that to mean that any malware would be destroyed
too!
>> Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply
>> use a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
>
> If the system disc is clean
How can one be sure that it *is* clean?!!!
> and initializes the bootsector with clean
> code, bye bye rootkit. Assuming it was an MBR based one.
That is my understanding too. My niggling concern has always been that
malware (call it what you will) might remain 'somewhere' within a box
ready to continue with it's malicious activity even though it's been
flattened and windows reinstalled (or even if a *new* hard disk has been
installed!).
I suspect such thoughts came about from my contact and discussion with
our then High Tech Crime Unit - who recommended that I *destroy/trash*
the machine involved in my identity theft encounter. The implication was
that there is much more going on 'behind the scenes'- things that the
authorities do not want the public to know about!
As I'm sure you have gathered, I prefer honesty and openness! :)
~BD~
>
> Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard
> or Video-card.
> **And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he could introduce malware
> into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
I cannot do that ...... and you know it!
However - that does *not* mean that it *doesn't* happen!
> There is not taking a step outside the box. This is the reality.
> There is NO malware that infects or resides within the; BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
So you say, David.
Please review my answers to Dustin Cook.
BD
David H. Lipman
| David H. Lipman wrote:
>> Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within the; BIOS,
>> Motherboard
>> or Video-card.
>> **And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he could introduce
>> malware
>> into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
| I cannot do that ...... and you know it!
| However - that does *not* mean that it *doesn't* happen!
You can't becuase there are none!
While there are none, you are pushing FUD.
~BD~
> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>>> Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within the; BIOS,
>>> Motherboard
>>> or Video-card.
>>> **And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he could introduce
>>> malware
>>> into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
>
> | I cannot do that ...... and you know it!
>
> | However - that does *not* mean that it *doesn't* happen!
>
> You can't becuase there are none!
>
> While there are none, you are pushing FUD.
>
>
To whom do you consider that I'm "pushing" Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?
All I've *ever* been doing is asking questions!
--
BD
David H. Lipman
| To whom do you consider that I'm "pushing" Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?
| All I've *ever* been doing is asking questions!
To all the readers of the x-posted news groups and all the http front-ends that access
them.
As for ...
"In particular, do you agree that "Rootkits can also hide in the Firmware
of Hardware Components, in the BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM or
Alternate Data Streams....." ?
The part about Rootkits hiding in the Firmware of Hardware Components, in the BIOS,
Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM has already been answered. You brought it up before, a few
times, and you were told that it is incorrect. By you re-incarnating the subject matter
you are introducing FUD as if what you had been previously told was not factual.
As for ADS that is a whole different concept and is a way of hding a RootKit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_data_stream
There is a kind of RootKit methodology that has been used, that was NOT even mentioned,
and was used by the Gromozon malware family (which also used ADS) and was described quite
well by Marco Guiliani of Prevx.
Find that information and report back what that methodology is. That's worth discussing,
not "In particular, do you agree that "Rootkits can also hide in the Firmware
of Hardware Components, in the BIOS, Motherboard, Video-card EEPROM" shit.
~BD~
> "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:RbSdnY3dLah7CUfW...@bt.com...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid
>>
>> That's good to know! :)
>>
>>> - just annoying as all hell. :oD
>>
>> Name two things which I do which you find annoying - if necessary,
>> please explain why so. I *may* change what I do!
Let's deal with this part of your response first.
> 1) Introducing your personal vendetta against PF whenever it suits you.
I have no personal vendetta against anyone.
The posting persona known as Peter Foldes (or is it Derek Feldman?) is
not honest and truthful. I don't approve of that.
> 2) Needlessly crossposting your posts, even when from within another's
> thread and transplanting posts from other places and posting off topic
> and getting too obsessed with having other people's personal information
> and practically *demanding* that others assuage any personal "hinky
> feeling" you may have and ... well ... that's enough for number two.
Isn't Usenet great? :)
If folk choose not to substantiate their standing in the real world then
AFAIC they are simply fantasy figures of the Internet.
Remember this thread, FTR
Not much has changed!
--
Dave
David H. Lipman
| FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:RbSdnY3dLah7CUfW...@bt.com...
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid
>>> That's good to know! :)
>>>> - just annoying as all hell. :oD
>>> Name two things which I do which you find annoying - if necessary,
>>> please explain why so. I *may* change what I do!
| Let's deal with this part of your response first.
>> 1) Introducing your personal vendetta against PF whenever it suits you.
| I have no personal vendetta against anyone.
Person -- Robear Dyer
Place -- aumha.net and its members like Robera and Randy.
Ant
> 1. The "False Authority Syndrome"
>
> Don't believe everything. Some people talk or write about viruses as if
> they were an authority in this field, but in fact they are often not.
>
> Ref: http://www.claymania.com/info-fas.html
The link to vmyths (for more about FAS) on that page is out of date.
Use this: http://vmyths.com/fas/ which redirects to a PDF written by
Rob Rosenberger. It's a bit dated now, talking about old msdos viruses
and bulletin boards, but the wisdom is still sound.
"The U.S. Air Force highlights the concept of False Authority Syndrome
in Tongue & Quill, their official publication on effective writing:
Nonexpert opinion or assumed authority - Don't be swayed (or try to
sway someone else) based on the opinion of an unqualified authority.
The Air Force is chock-full of people who, because of their position
or authority in one field, are quoted on subjects in other fields
for which they have limited or no experience.
(As this Air Force publication notes, False Authority Syndrome can
attack people in all fields of expertise.)".
> My niggling concern has always been that
> malware (call it what you will) might remain 'somewhere' within a box
> ready to continue with it's malicious activity even though it's been
> flattened and windows reinstalled (or even if a *new* hard disk has been
> installed!).
>
> I suspect such thoughts came about from my contact and discussion with
> our then High Tech Crime Unit - who recommended that I *destroy/trash*
> the machine involved in my identity theft encounter.
See the quote above. Police units dealing with computer crime are not
authorities on malware. Their expertise is in gathering evidence
(computer forensics) for possible prosecutions. They need to know
where and what to look for on the system and, before they start, how
to preserve or not corrupt that information. Sure, they may employ or
consult experts who know something about particular malware in certain
cases but did you communicate with one of these experts? More likely
it was some desk sergeant or other front man whose job is not to
educate the public about the finer points of fraudulent or malicious
software but simply to give the safest and most general advice; i.e.
trash the machine. In fact, that sounds like pretty dumb advice from
anyone claiming to be an expert on malware.
> The implication was
> that there is much more going on 'behind the scenes'- things that the
> authorities do not want the public to know about!
There's no such implication - just your paranoid fantasies and
conspiracy theories at work.
David H. Lipman
| "~BD~" wrote:
>> 1. The "False Authority Syndrome"
>> Don't believe everything. Some people talk or write about viruses as if
>> they were an authority in this field, but in fact they are often not.
>> Ref: http://www.claymania.com/info-fas.html
| The link to vmyths (for more about FAS) on that page is out of date.
| Use this: http://vmyths.com/fas/ which redirects to a PDF written by
| Rob Rosenberger. It's a bit dated now, talking about old msdos viruses
| and bulletin boards, but the wisdom is still sound.
< snip >
You don't see Robin on Usenet as much lately. For a short while he was posting malware
humour.
I was communicating with him offline not too long ago and I was pleasingly surprised that
Robin and I have something in common.
John Mason Jr
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>> If the article claims an infection in the bios or eeprom vs corruption;
>> then the article is indeed, wrong. BD.
>
> Thank you, Dustin.
>
>>> Take a step outside the box, David.
>>
>> Google bios and eeproms David. You might find it somewhat enlightening.
>
> I've done much research!
>
So ask specific questions based on your research, if you post links to
where the information was obtained folks can look at the original material.
Many folks have told you that in their opinion, and experience this
behavior has not been observed in the wild.
If you don't want the opinion of folks in the newgroup why would you
continue to ask for it?
John
~BD~
Ant wrote:
> "~BD~" wrote:
>> 1. The "False Authority Syndrome"
>>
>> Don't believe everything. Some people talk or write about viruses as if
>> they were an authority in this field, but in fact they are often not.
>>
>> Ref: http://www.claymania.com/info-fas.html
>
> The link to vmyths (for more about FAS) on that page is out of date.
> Use this: http://vmyths.com/fas/ which redirects to a PDF written by
> Rob Rosenberger. It's a bit dated now, talking about old msdos viruses
> and bulletin boards, but the wisdom is still sound.
>
> "The U.S. Air Force highlights the concept of False Authority Syndrome
>
> Nonexpert opinion or assumed authority - Don't be swayed (or try to
> sway someone else) based on the opinion of an unqualified authority.
> The Air Force is chock-full of people who, because of their position
> or authority in one field, are quoted on subjects in other fields
> for which they have limited or no experience.
>
> (As this Air Force publication notes, False Authority Syndrome can
> attack people in all fields of expertise.)".
Thank you for the revision, Ant. The Conclusion in that document says,
quote:-
"I DONAT WANT to dispel any particular computer virus myths someone may
have told you u thatAs not my goal here. Rather, I want you to question
a personAs expertise if he or she claims to speak with authority on
computer viruses."
>> My niggling concern has always been that
>> malware (call it what you will) might remain 'somewhere' within a box
>> ready to continue with it's malicious activity even though it's been
>> flattened and windows reinstalled (or even if a *new* hard disk has been
>> installed!).
>>
>> I suspect such thoughts came about from my contact and discussion with
>> our then High Tech Crime Unit - who recommended that I *destroy/trash*
>> the machine involved in my identity theft encounter.
>
> See the quote above. Police units dealing with computer crime are not
> authorities on malware. Their expertise is in gathering evidence
> (computer forensics) for possible prosecutions. They need to know
> where and what to look for on the system and, before they start, how
> to preserve or not corrupt that information. Sure, they may employ or
> consult experts who know something about particular malware in certain
> cases but did you communicate with one of these experts? More likely
> it was some desk sergeant or other front man whose job is not to
> educate the public about the finer points of fraudulent or malicious
> software but simply to give the safest and most general advice; i.e.
> trash the machine. In fact, that sounds like pretty dumb advice from
> anyone claiming to be an expert on malware.
You may well be right!
>> The implication was
>> that there is much more going on 'behind the scenes'- things that the
>> authorities do not want the public to know about!
>
> There's no such implication - just your paranoid fantasies and
> conspiracy theories at work.
Maybe so. Tell me, then, about the expertise and 'qualifications' of Mr
Lipman. I suspect that he's a 'professional' but seems reluctant to say
so. You talk as if you *know* him!
FromTheRafters
[...]
> At that link it says - quote:-
>
> "When you run the fdisk command to create, delete, or change a
> partition, all of the data on that partition is permanently deleted".
>
> I've always understood that to mean that any malware would be
> destroyed too!
Bad sectors (or sectors *marked* as bad) in this case might be
considered "outside" any partition.
[...]
> That is my understanding too. My niggling concern has always been that
> malware (call it what you will) might remain 'somewhere' within a box
> ready to continue with it's malicious activity even though it's been
> flattened and windows reinstalled (or even if a *new* hard disk has
> been installed!).
Warning - - an analogy follows:
Some vaguely described monster has finally been *killed* by the monster
hunter and you have an uneasy feeling that the monster can rise from the
blood at the scene of the killing. Well, it ain't gonna happen, but when
you asked an expert if an entity like that could be resurrected from its
blood - he said yes and told you about DNA and sheep, cats, etc...
The thing is, the expert wasn't asked if the entity could self-resurrect
from the blood left behind after the killing of the monster.
FromTheRafters
> Isn't Usenet great? :)
Yes! :oD
> If folk choose not to substantiate their standing in the real world
> then AFAIC they are simply fantasy figures of the Internet.
>
> Remember this thread, FTR
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.security.virus/browse_thread/thread/24146319906307ac/d42636edf3d1e14b?hl=en&q=The+newbies+dilema&lnk=ol&
>
> Not much has changed!
Did you really expect it to?
~BD~
> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:RbSdnY3dLah7CUfW...@bt.com...
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Maybe, but I believe he is not stupid
>
>>>> That's good to know! :)
>
>>>>> - just annoying as all hell. :oD
>
>>>> Name two things which I do which you find annoying - if necessary,
>>>> please explain why so. I *may* change what I do!
>
> | Let's deal with this part of your response first.
>
>>> 1) Introducing your personal vendetta against PF whenever it suits you.
>
> | I have no personal vendetta against anyone.
>
> Person -- Robear Dyer
> Place -- aumha.net and its members like Robera and Randy.
>
May I refer you to this post?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.scorched-earth/msg/ca3b5b6709131018?hl=en
Where I said .......
"My use of Norton AV is what prompted my exclusion from Aumha, which as
you well know, is the *real* 'home' of PA Bear (aka Robear Dyer). I
found that 'interesting', especially as subsequently he lied saying
that I had been banned by an ISP, when this is false) and then he
refuses to communicate further. Such behaviour is irrational!"
That is the truth as far as I am aware. If this is disputed, let us
discuss further. I have *never* been banned by /any/ ISP - *ever*!
BD
Dustin Cook
news:zM-dnaWNkNOrI0HW...@bt.com:
Wouldn't this be more appropriate in another newsgroup? This one, and the
ones I see you've set as followup don't really apply...
~BD~
No. I'd hoped that Dustin might re-read the thread if it came to his
attention again and he wasn't too busy! ;-)
Trolli is still monitoring posts being made on Scorched-Earth.
*Why*?
Proof positive?
Yup! (anyone know why MISMATCH appears in the first line of 'Path'?
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!feeder2-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!74.125.46.134.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.ohio.net!news.ohio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:47:26 -0500
From: "Li" <l...@invalid.spam.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
References: <hr1u04$48h$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
<R_udnUFk1cWfXUnW...@bt.com>
<Xns9D665D7A815...@69.16.185.250>
<jJqdnW62Qe3y4kjW...@bt.com>
<Xns9D667CC5B49...@69.16.185.250>
<qsydndeOBshEVUjW...@bt.com>
<hr4nq0$jqj$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
<-LCdnY19rfHuikvW...@bt.com>
<Xns9D66C9C594A...@69.16.185.250>
<WNydnYv03PrTEkvW...@bt.com>
<Xns9D676F83D18...@69.16.185.250>
<XKadneU4RY9500rW...@bt.com>
<Xns9D67AFEC4E4...@69.16.185.250>
<TJednfE8rbImL0XW...@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <TJednfE8rbImL0XW...@bt.com>
Subject: Re: The truth *will* out! :)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
Message-ID: <meednRTKybqzeEXW...@ohio.net>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.219.181.60
X-Trace:
sv3-F7mwcZFQWLFFl7DAqiT6He2opE/ChGv6NIJCEXTLC0zoNZCcICDviF0k/d1PfrVgnGvvJ1n7xDuPujJ!FPUVYQJHz86OD/EHktM/RjErK/5/vPRfTPxFZG4HHdbrgH48BGtlfAaUmLz2jvfDfYiZjM63OvNN!3WGaHqjf
X-Complaints-To: ab...@ohio.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@ohio.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3615
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.politics.scorched-earth:30454
<SIGH>
Dustin Cook
news:rYydneWshpxkXUHW...@bt.com:
> No. I'd hoped that Dustin might re-read the thread if it came to his
> attention again and he wasn't too busy! ;-)
I started to read the link posted. when I saw the dates and your comments
concerning pcbutts, I stopped. :)
I know that mbam isn't 100% safe anymore so than my hand sanitizer kills
100% of all germs. (it claims 99.?% instead). It's proven math on these.
Not by fault of either product, it's just not a mathematically correct
(nor legally really) thing to say.
> Trolli is still monitoring posts being made on Scorched-Earth.
BD, it's usenet.. You can even set google to monitor posts and phrases
for you, and email when it sees something. Technology for you. :)
I lurked for a few days myself before I actually posted the first time. I
have read most of the threads I found on the server here (I use the
server provided by my ISP; old habits die hard) but haven't posted to
many of them.
> *Why*?
Could be any number of reasons. Not everything is a conspiracy, ya
know...
Ant
> Tell me, then, about the expertise and 'qualifications' of Mr
> Lipman. I suspect that he's a 'professional' but seems reluctant to say
> so. You talk as if you *know* him!
How do you get the impression I know him from my previous post when I
never mentioned or referred to him?
As it happens, both he and I are long-time contributors to acv and
acav, he offers advice to help people clean their machines and
provides a useful tool to do that in the form of Multi-AV. So yes,
I know him on usenet and from a private forum of researchers and
anti-malware people and have corresponded with him in email. I don't
know what he does for a living or what qualifications he has and
neither do I care because the advice he gives is sound. All
indications are that he has a wide knowledge of computer security,
viruses and other malware.
As for my expertise, I've previously mentioned I'm a long-time
programmer with a particular interest in reverse engineering
malicious code. I know about the capabilities of most currently
circulating malware and popular exploits as you may have noticed from
other posts I've made to these groups. Of course, in this field it's
a constant learning experience as computer systems and software evolve
and the bay guys try out new methods.
I tend not to dispense advice about security or AV software because
that's not my area of interest or expertise and I don't use such
applications. If I have to clean infected systems I use my low-level
system knowledge and basic or specialist tools.
Dustin Cook
~BD~
You should try your hand at writing stories for children, FTR! :)
~BD~
>
> Wouldn't this be more appropriate in another newsgroup? This one, and the
> ones I see you've set as followup don't really apply...
>
You are probably right, Dustin :)
Which group(s) do you suggest?
BD
~BD~
> ~BD~<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:rYydneWshpxkXUHW...@bt.com:
>
>> No. I'd hoped that Dustin might re-read the thread if it came to his
>> attention again and he wasn't too busy! ;-)
>
> I started to read the link posted. when I saw the dates and your comments
> concerning pcbutts, I stopped. :)
>
I am *so* disappointed! :(
> I know that mbam isn't 100% safe any moreso than my hand sanitizer kills
> 100% of all germs. (it claims 99.?% instead). It's proven math on these.
Your English corrected! <big smile!>
> Not by fault of either product, it's just not a mathematically correct
> (nor legally really) thing to say.
>
>> Trolli is still monitoring posts being made on Scorched-Earth.
>
> BD, it's usenet.. You can even set google to monitor posts and phrases
> for you, and email when it sees something. Technology for you. :)
I've no real idea about setting up auto monitoring - I read *everything!*
> I lurked for a few days myself before I actually posted the first time. I
> have read most of the threads I found on the server here (I use the
> server provided by my ISP; old habits die hard) but haven't posted to
> many of them.
>
>> *Why*?
>
> Could be any number of reasons. Not everything is a conspiracy, ya
> know...
No - not everything!
Read here, on your home territory!
http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=5656&st=20&p=27599&#entry27599
I'd still like us to work together, Dustin! :)
--
Dave
Max Wachtel
> Which group do you suggest?
alt.usenet.kooks -you'll find some real charmers in there.
--
This post was created using Opera@USB: http://www.opera-usb.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
~BD~
Ant wrote:
> "~BD~" wrote:
>> Tell me, then, about the expertise and 'qualifications' of Mr
>> Lipman. I suspect that he's a 'professional' but seems reluctant to say
>> so. You talk as if you *know* him!
>
> How do you get the impression I know him from my previous post when I
> never mentioned or referred to him?
I had a son who was a computer guru - he's an angel now. He guides me!
> As it happens, both he and I are long-time contributors to acv and
> acav, he offers advice to help people clean their machines and
> provides a useful tool to do that in the form of Multi-AV. So yes,
> I know him on usenet and from a private forum of researchers and
> anti-malware people and have corresponded with him in email. I don't
> know what he does for a living or what qualifications he has and
> neither do I care because the advice he gives is sound. All
> indications are that he has a wide knowledge of computer security,
> viruses and other malware.
Thank you. What you say holds no surprises!
> As for my expertise, I've previously mentioned I'm a long-time
> programmer with a particular interest in reverse engineering
> malicious code. I know about the capabilities of most currently
> circulating malware and popular exploits as you may have noticed from
> other posts I've made to these groups. Of course, in this field it's
> a constant learning experience as computer systems and software evolve
> and the bay guys try out new methods.
>
> I tend not to dispense advice about security or AV software because
> that's not my area of interest or expertise and I don't use such
> applications. If I have to clean infected systems I use my low-level
> system knowledge and basic or specialist tools.
You sound much like the cyber-friend I made on the Kaspersky forums!
P2U is/was Dutch, Married to a Russian woman and lives(d) in Moscow. I
'met' him on the Kaspersky forums after I had bought KAV7 a few years
ago. Amongst other things he specialised in computer forensics and was
trying to help me investigate how 'bad guys' do things.
Here is a past PM conversation:
QUOTE (by me! BD)
If I type http://www.annex.com into IE7, my AOL browser or Firefox - it
works as expected (or should I say as I might expect?).
I wouldn't be surprised if you told me something was not quite right,
even at first base!
REPLY
I understand that googlesyndication and google-analytics are there
asking to execute scripts and to drop cookies, but what the **** are
live.com and msn.com doing there?!?
OK. I'll register later today as p2u. I have to go and see a student
right now. I'll be back in an hour or three.
Paul
_____________________________________________________________________
Regrettably, little further progress ensued. Here's the reason why.
Message from Paul, 27.09.2008 05:50
Hi, Dave!
Yes, I owe you an explanation, but I couldn't find the strength to write
you about it. At the end of last year, I was diagnosed with a swelling
in the pancreatic area. I've been through hell all this time. Life
expectancy is not much; at most 2 years. The problem is that the
swelling was benign, but is turning into a malignant one. An operation
means almost certain death. I'm not afraid of dying, not for myself - I
just wonder how my little son is going to take this.
I hope you understand, that in such a state of mind I'm not eager at all
to communicate with anyone. This is nothing personal. I hope you
understand that. That's also the reason why I rarely appear on this
forum - the 'how-are-you' stuff scares me. I don't know how I am and why
this is happening to me...
Kind regards,
Paul
_______________________________________________________________________
There is more information here should you be mildly interested.
It is basically an extract of posts I 'stored' on Jenn's BB but folk
would have to register to read same there. http://pqlr.org/bbs/
If I'm wasting your time, forgive me. My only ambition is to help, in
any small way, to ruffle the feathers of the bad guys to which you
refer. I seek only the truth.
--
Dave
~BD~
> ~BD~<Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>
>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>
>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>> **********************************
>>
>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>
>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>
>
> Yay! Thank God... :)
>
>
I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd prefer
to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
offensive.
It was also in the Honorary Members group which is not, as far as I'm
aware, accessible by the general public or children.
--
Dave
Dustin Cook
LfgU0DWnZ2d...@bt.com:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> ~BD~<Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>>
>>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>>
>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>> **********************************
>>>
>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>
>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>>
>>
>> Yay! Thank God... :)
>>
>>
>
> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>
> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd prefer
> to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>
> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you forged
yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on you, and
then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable, frakking
laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
David H. Lipman
| I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
| pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
| offensive.
http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules
Terms of Use:
"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening,
sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. In addition
you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is comment spam (injecting a
comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to a website offering the
same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to this website), the use of
signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing web traffic to a site of
interest by the member, or any combination of those two examples. This includes the
Personal Message feature."
JD
> ~BD~<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in news:uf6dnfDt-
> LfgU0DWnZ2d...@bt.com:
>
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> ~BD~<Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>>>
>>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>>> **********************************
>>>>
>>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yay! Thank God... :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>>
>> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd prefer
>> to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>>
>> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
>
> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you forged
> yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on you, and
> then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable, frakking
> laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
>
>
>
>
>
maybe lie a little because boater Dave seeks "only the truth."
You know, if nobody replied to boater Dave he might just go away. Maybe.
We can only hope. 8-)
--
JD..
~BD~
> ~BD~<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in news:uf6dnfDt-
> LfgU0DWnZ2d...@bt.com:
>
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> ~BD~<Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>>>
>>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>>> **********************************
>>>>
>>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yay! Thank God... :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>>
>> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd prefer
>> to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>>
>> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
>
> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you forged
> yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on you, and
> then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable, frakking
> laughable.
>
Just testing your reaction, Dustin! ;-)
I've *forged* nothing - I've broken no laws either.
Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
> You lack honor and discipline.
No - I don't.
In fact, the 'Management' at Malwarebytes, by choosing not to
correspond, have shown very poor management skills.
--
Dave - Mr Lipman need not respond! ;)
"Rules are made for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men."
- Douglas Bader
David H. Lipman
>> You lack honor and discipline.
| No - I don't.
Yes - You do!
| In fact, the 'Management' at Malwarebytes, by choosing not to
| correspond, have shown very poor management skills.
The management skills of Malwarewarebytes is excellent as they properly and judiciously
enforced the rules YOU agreed to abide by.
~BD~
> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
>
>
>>> You lack honor and discipline.
>
> | No - I don't.
>
> Yes - You do!
You are entitled to an opinion - even when you are wrong!
> | In fact, the 'Management' at Malwarebytes, by choosing not to
> | correspond, have shown very poor management skills.
>
> The management skills of Malwarebytes are excellent as they properly and judiciously
> enforced the rules YOU agreed to abide by.
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules
>
> Terms of Use:
>
> "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening,
> sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. In addition
> you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is comment spam (injecting a
> comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to a website offering the
> same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to this website), the use of
> signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing web traffic to a site of
> interest by the member, or any combination of those two examples. This includes the
> Personal Message feature."
>
Which one (or more) of these words do *you* think best describes the fun
picture, David?
abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or
sexually-oriented
**
I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
FWIW
--
Dave
David H. Lipman
| sexually-oriented
| **
| I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
| rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
| banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
You were given two chances.
~BD~
> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | sexually-oriented
>
> | **
>
> | I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
> | rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
> | banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
>
> You were given two chances.
>
So others have said.
I saw no warning - just that the picture had disappeared.
Did you see a warning? It's not visible now.
Nor was I sent an email warning. Why was that, do you think?
From here, it seems as if they were trying to avoid my involvement in
the forums, even though I was an *Honorary* Member!
"There's nowt so queer as folk" as they say in Yorkshire!
--
Dave
~BD~
>
> "There's nowt so queer as folk" as they say in Yorkshire!
>
JD
> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | sexually-oriented
>
> | **
>
> | I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
> | rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
> | banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
>
> You were given two chances.
>
Each time you reply, he comes back with more ignorant bs. He's a fool
asking for others to not be foolish. He seeks the real truth but he
speaks in lies. If you stop replying to boater Dave maybe he'll go away.
Maybe. God I hope so. Probably not.
But it's worth a try. 8-)
--
JD..
David H. Lipman
>> | sexually-oriented
>> | **
Thank you. You are right.
I was about to reply but, I read this post and canceled the post.
JD
> From: "JD"<J...@example.invalid>
>
> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "~BD~"<Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
>>> | sexually-oriented
>
>>> | **
>
>>> | I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
>>> | rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
>>> | banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
>
>>> You were given two chances.
>
>
> | Each time you reply, he comes back with more ignorant bs. He's a fool
> | asking for others to not be foolish. He seeks the real truth but he
> | speaks in lies. If you stop replying to boater Dave maybe he'll go away.
> | Maybe. God I hope so. Probably not.
>
> | But it's worth a try. 8-)
>
> Thank you. You are right.
> I was about to reply but, I read this post and canceled the post.
>
>
Thank you. Lets see what happens.
--
JD..
~BD~
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>
>> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>>
>> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
>
>
> is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
> and violence are routinely celebrated.
I guess you were in no way offended. That's good! :)
Thanks for posting.
BD
Bullwinkle
and not them.
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hrl49...@news5.newsguy.com...
PajaP
wrote:
>Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>
>I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
It is not porn at all.
~BD~
:) Thanks for your view!
Leythos
BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk says...
>
> Toxic wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
> >>
> >> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
> >> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
> >
> >
> > Interesting that an image of the very font of neonatal sustenance,
> > is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
> > and violence are routinely celebrated.
That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.
I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.
Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
and users.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
~BD~
> In article<yIidnXGEzOJW8UPW...@bt.com>,
> BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk says...
>>
>> Toxic wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>>>> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting that an image of the very font of neonatal sustenance,
>>> is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
>>> and violence are routinely celebrated.
>
> That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
> people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
> does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.
>
> I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
> and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
> one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.
>
> Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
> and users.
>
Your comments are duly noted.
Thank you.
Jenn
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D6CA90C959...@69.16.185.247...
> ~BD~ <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in news:uf6dnfDt-
> LfgU0DWnZ2d...@bt.com:
>
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> ~BD~<Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTW...@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> OK - I'm convinced at last. :)
>>>>
>>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>>> **********************************
>>>>
>>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=141724&hl=Malwarebytes
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yay! Thank God... :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>>
>> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd prefer
>> to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>>
>> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you forged
> yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on you, and
> then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable, frakking
> laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
>
I'm thinking you're exaggerating quite alot, Dustin. Anyone can register
under any name on any group. Dave just told you he re-registered. He
didn't have to tell you or anyone and could be a member in good standing
under any other username and no one would know... but he TOLD you.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wMadnaLf6IwUjEPW...@bt.com...
I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I wouldn't put
it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids don't use malwarebytes
forum, either.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> From: "~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
> | sexually-oriented
>
> | **
>
> | I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture. IMO
> | rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be used to
> | banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
>
> You were given two chances.
>
Why not give him 5 chances .. or 6 chances.. or 4 chances?? Why do you stop
at 2 chances especially when I saw no warning in the thread Dustin posted?
Ya'll are being a bit of a hard case over a silly thing.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"JD" <J...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:VOidnRP-lLfWp0PW...@posted.grandecom...
silly person ... nothing is going to happen ... people will pretend to not
read daves posts.. and then ya'll will begin responding because that's what
happens on ngs.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Leythos" <spam9...@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.26489539c...@us.news.astraweb.com...
> In article <yIidnXGEzOJW8UPW...@bt.com>,
> BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk says...
>>
>> Toxic wrote:
>> > On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
> That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
> people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
> does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.
> I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
> and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
> one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.
You're an old fart huh? How old is Old? You'd think an old fart would
understand another old farts idea of a fun image and just give them a slap
on the hand, delete the image, and move on.
> Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
> and users.
baloney ... people need to get a sense of humor .....
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hrks1...@news5.newsguy.com...
> From: "~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
>
> | I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
> | pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
> | offensive.
>
>
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules
>
> Terms of Use:
>
> "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful,
> threatening,
> sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable
> laws. In addition
> you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is comment spam
> (injecting a
> comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to a website
> offering the
> same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to this
> website), the use of
> signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing web
> traffic to a site of
> interest by the member, or any combination of those two examples. This
> includes the
> Personal Message feature."
>
>
so whats your point? The image is not any of that.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Max Wachtel
> That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
> people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
> does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.
>
> I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
> and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
> one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.
>
> Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
> and users.
+1
--
This message was created using SeaMonkey Portable.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/seamonkey_portable
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
JD
You ever heard the term "$hit for brains"?
You and boater Dave bring so little to this newsgroup. Yes, people
respond because they hope you will understand the nature of these
newsgroups but you won't. Hence the term $shit for brains.
Actually it would be an improvement if you had $hit for brains!
8-)
--
JD..
Jenn
"JD" <J...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> Jenn wrote:
>>>> Thank you. You are right.
>>>> I was about to reply but, I read this post and canceled the post.
>> silly person ... nothing is going to happen ... people will pretend to
>> not
>> read daves posts.. and then ya'll will begin responding because that's
>> what
>> happens on ngs.
> You ever heard the term "$hit for brains"?
yeah ... idiots use that phrase when they have come to the conclusion that
they have no valid argument so they have to resort to phrases like that.
it's supposed to make them feel more like men, but it really just shows off
their lacking IQ score.
> You and boater Dave bring so little to this newsgroup.
... and you bring what to this group? oh I forgot ... you bring phrases like
"$hit for brains" and you think it's somehow cute and makes you look smart?
I see... are you like 15 years old?
> Yes, people respond because they hope you will understand the nature of
> these newsgroups but you won't. Hence the term $shit for brains.
ahh ... so you think you have the IQ now, to explain the nature of
newsgroups? ... but I see you can't seem to get past your need to use foul
language. You should probably regroup and try again to communicate on an
adult level if you want to be taken seriously.
> Actually it would be an improvement if you had $hit for brains!
There you go again, showing just how low of an IQ you have going on in that
head of yours. If you keep trying, perhaps you will be able to communicate
like a grown up soon.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
JD
Thanks for the reply. I rest my case. SFB it is!
--
JD..
Jenn
"JD" <J...@example.invalid> wrote in message
Does your momma really let you stay up this late?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
PajaP
wrote:
>
>"Leythos" <spam9...@rrohio.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.26489539c...@us.news.astraweb.com...
>> Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
>> and users.
>
>baloney ... people need to get a sense of humor .....
+1, AOL and me too (because like the 'regulars' I like to make
meaningful posts)
~BD~
>
> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I wouldn't put
> it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids don't use malwarebytes
> forum, either.
>
>
I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
offensive.
It was also in the *Honorary Members* group which is not, as far as I'm
aware, accessible by the general public or children.
Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?
FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name ..
... which was *Beady* and using my original (and current) email address!
Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)
I think Dustin said somewhere that the posting of the picture wasn't, in
fact, the real reason for my exclusion - but I can't find that post of
his right now. It will turn up, never fear!
Thanks for your comments, Jenn. Enjoy your day!
--
Dave
Dustin Cook
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> From: "~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
>
>| So now we are in a situation where someone (drdos) has posted
>| information on a well known technical forum saying one thing .......
>| and Mr David H Lipman (whoever he may *really* be!) making a post on
>| Usenet groups claiming that the original poster is wrong.
>
>| Take a step outside the box, David.
>
>| How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of
>| who is actually telling the truth?
>
>| I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no
>| supporting evidence to that effect - is there?
>
>| Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
>| disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
>| formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
>| sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying
>| payload of malware behind and still active."?
>
>| If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling
>| an operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and
>| Nuke?
>| http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boot-and-Nuke-for-CD-and-DVD/3000-209
>| 4_4-10151762.html
>
>| Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
>
>| Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply
>| use a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
>
>| --
>| Dave
>
> Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within
> the; BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
And evidently, has some sort of universal translator for the code
differences found between them all. :)
> **And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he
> could introduce malware into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.
I would prefer it further if said engineer was able to demostrate
operational code instead of a storage site for potentially malicious code
which will never get run control; and thus, remain quite... harmless.
> There is not taking a step outside the box. This is the reality.
> There is NO malware that infects or resides within the; BIOS,
> Motherboard or Video-card.
Only few malware samples which would make an effort to corrupt the BIOS;
and it required very specific hardware in order to do it's deed. One size
doesn't fit all.
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
---
* Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out free usenet!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
Dustin Cook
news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LW...@bt.com:
> Jenn wrote:
>
>>
>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>
>>
>
> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
> offensive.
>
> It was also in the *Honorary Members* group which is not, as far as
> I'm aware, accessible by the general public or children.
Honorary members was accessable to anyone who gained 50 posts or more.
> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?
Not much of a point really; as the general public is more than able to
gain entry to the forum; once they create 50 posts
> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name
That is because you were dishonest, Dave. Your banning was an indication
that they didn't want you on their site. You evaded it by creating a new
userID. Did you think you could do that and actually get away with it?
the forum software isn't usenet; it's not limited by the same ways. IE:
ban evasion methods can be circumvented, as you have learned.
> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)
You mistakenly think with the knowledge you posses that you could. I hate
to burst your bubble, or maybe I don't... but, you can't hide with the
limited knowledge you possess. :)
> I think Dustin said somewhere that the posting of the picture wasn't,
> in fact, the real reason for my exclusion - but I can't find that post
> of his right now. It will turn up, never fear!
I think when you bring that post up and read it, that isn't what was
said. Happy digging tho. :)
> Thanks for your comments, Jenn. Enjoy your day!
Jenn's comments don't apply in this instance. She will not be able to
restore your BD account at malwarebytes; and because of your dishonesty
in creating another userid, knowing full well you aren't welcome there...
is only going to make things more difficult for you to ever regain
permission to access the forum. The creation of the bogus account didn't
help you BD, it served to further prove what many of us think you are.
Dustin Cook
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hrnl78$i8k$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Yes, Jenn. Anyone can re-register under any name in any group. When one
chooses to do so, knowing full well he is banned (which is why he's
creating another account in the first place) does *not* in any way show
good intentions, nor respect of any sort towards the forum admins.
If anything, it further justifies the initial ban that was set on his
account.
Further, He wouldn't have to tell me or anyone else he did this. As the
forum admins do audit for security purposes on occasion; his new userid
along with IP would be flagged as belonging to a now banned userID. Ie:
he would be caught eventually.
Clearly you know little about the options available to someone, should
they wish to use them.
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
---
Dustin Cook
> Jenn wrote:
>
>>
>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>
>>
>
> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
> offensive.
At the end of the day, it does not matter. You were given several
chances, BD. You can cry foul until your blue in the face. Your ban won't
be lifted anytime soon. You had a better chance of eventually getting it
lifted if you hadn't of gone around the ban in the first place by
creating a new account.
If you keep doing that annoying stuff, you could find yourself withen
violation of your own ISP rules; I'm sure they have something about
accessing equipment and sites without permission. And you lost the
permission when your first account was banned. The second created account
would technically be tresspass.
> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?
You defeated the entire point and any possible restoration of your
original account by creating another fake ID.
> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name
Indeed. you realize, if they wanted to be an annoyance for you, they
could rightfully report to your isp of tresspass. I don't think they'd
take that route tho, unless you continue creating fake accounts.
However, with that said, if you were a user on my ftp or irc servers here
and I banned you; and you evaded it more than say once, I would contact
your ISP for unauthorized access as a SysOp.
In fact, as Jenn is a friend of yours and has prior SysOp experience on
MSn forums; I'd recommend you consult with her about possible actions
that could be taken against you, should you desire to continue creating
bogus accounts.
And BD, just so you know, using another email address for yet another
account signup isn't going to keep you hidden for long. At some point, an
audit will be performed and like this last time, your fake account(s)
will show up.
Malwarebytes is in the security business BD, don't mistake them for
hobbyist forum admins like Jenn.
..
>
> ... which was *Beady* and using my original (and current) email
> address!
>
> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)
If you think that's what gave you away, then you need to do some
research.
Dustin Cook
news:hrnl78$i8k$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I disagree, Jenn. Anyone can register with any name the person desires,
so long as the follow the forum rules. Having an ID banned and creating
anotherone does not follow the rules; and it can result in tresspass
complaints to his service provider. The fact he was banned negated his
privledges on that site. Accessing that site or any other is a privledge,
not a right and the site admins do have options.
Secondly, He didn't have to tell me anything about creating a new user
account. The site is routely checked to ensure security is being
maintained. His new account would have been flagged using any number of
criteria. I'm not going to get into specifics of how it works, but to
assume he or anyone else can create a new ID after losing another one; is
foolish and somewhat arrogant. Not to mention, highly incorrect. You do
not have anonymity on the internet, you have a false sense of it instead.
The fact he had to register under another name because the admins didn't
want him having an account there is actually a form of digital criminal
tresspass.
Dustin Cook
news:hrnm1m$l3s$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
The image is a front nudie view of a woman. This could fall under obsene
and sexually-oriented. More importantly, the forum posts are at
moderators discretion. Obviously, they found it offensive and eventually
did terminate his account.
The fact he has now gone and created another account; which he did get
caught:
Message-ID: <_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LW...@bt.com>
FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name ..
I believe, Jenn, creating another account to evade a BAN set by an
administrator is also against the terms of service.
Dustin Cook
news:y-6dnSfb-asv-kDW...@bt.com:
> I am *so* disappointed! :(
Heh, well; life is full of disappointments. Best you learn that.
>> I know that mbam isn't 100% safe any moreso than my hand sanitizer
>> kills 100% of all germs. (it claims 99.?% instead). It's proven math
>> on these.
>
> Your English corrected! <big smile!>
I have made a small effort to double check my grammar.
> I've no real idea about setting up auto monitoring - I read
> *everything!*
I doubt that. And even if you do read everything, you sure don't
comprehend alot of it.
> Read here, on your home territory!
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=5656&st=20&p=27599&#
> entry27599
I'm not really interested in an old thread; and that forum is not my home
terrority. I claim no home territory.
> I'd still like us to work together, Dustin! :)
Until you can come to grasp with reality and change your methods of
"truth" seeking, I am unwilling to work with you on any project.
~BD~
> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
> news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LW...@bt.com:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
>> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
>> offensive.
>>
>> It was also in the *Honorary Members* group which is not, as far as
>> I'm aware, accessible by the general public or children.
>
>> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?
>
> Not much of a point really; as the general public is more than able to
> gain entry to the forum; once they create 50 posts
Indeed. Stats please. Just how many children have made 50 posts or more?
>> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
>> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name
>
> That is because you were dishonest, Dave. Your banning was an indication
> that they didn't want you on their site. You evaded it by creating a new
> userID. Did you think you could do that and actually get away with it?
> the forum software isn't usenet; it's not limited by the same ways. IE:
> ban evasion methods can be circumvented, as you have learned.
>
>> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)
>
> You mistakenly think with the knowledge you posses that you could. I hate
> to burst your bubble, or maybe I don't... but, you can't hide with the
> limited knowledge you possess. :)
What *you* don't understand, Dustin, is that I didn't TRY to hide. I
even *told* you what I had done! All you have done now is drawn
attention to the fact that the Malwarebytes operation may *not* be what
it purports to be. I am no threat to anyone - my role has been to try to
identify those who may be misusing the Internet.
>> I think Dustin said somewhere that the posting of the picture wasn't,
>> in fact, the real reason for my exclusion - but I can't find that post
>> of his right now. It will turn up, never fear!
>
> I think when you bring that post up and read it, that isn't what was
> said. Happy digging tho. :)
As you know already, I found it on Scorched-Earth, viz:
>
> Path: border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!209.197.12.242.MISMATCH!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe07.iad.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Subject: Re: Yer 'tis!
From: Dustin Cook <bughunte...@gmail.com>
References: <hqv525$s1p$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D64C09F580...@69.16.185.250>
<hr0q7g$8c1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D65802D0CF...@69.16.185.250>
<hr1r5v$npk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D658398BAD...@69.16.185.247>
<hr1tco$557$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D665CC548D...@69.16.185.250>
<FJKdnVUbEbR2X0LW...@bt.com>
Organization: Core Technologies
Message-ID: <Xns9D6E21FA032...@69.16.185.250>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face:
")a1c1@v4695TOAAGDV"2*Q?\^40C9=M@Fw'c:YhY])Sb=T`-ev$|P|4Kff_BGW@l:=$o}Ivdx{blP|(XC-zAtj&8NNuo3Ie[v{NUwjU9Bf>sb*ylTx=^QUWZ|z\=w>zy<!.+?7@yh&_[]A?j_\OV-Rf7+Wv3r3.!>eQ=2pWPz5M%]9-UrUud}+
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: bhjljdinioecadnmmfchhmacfpkdlkkf
X-Complaints-To: ab...@charter.net
X-Trace:
meohkjfdkiefkjamphkbdkgdnpdboliblfphkefaoffkbcbcbhjljdinioecadnmkkjjlojnohpblhimglblmledfcglicpdkgpecckinfcopnaaikgckelplmkalecpbgjklipccefckbgb
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 07:12:59 UTC
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 07:12:59 GMT
Bytes: 3012
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.politics.scorched-earth:30924
~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
news:FJKdnVUbEbR2X0LW...@bt.com:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> Anyways, I have maintained all along that his nudie pic wasn't what
>> got him banned on it's own. It sure didn't help, it was the final
>> aspect, but *it wasn't what caused it*.
>
> I do wish I had a better memory!
Me too. Notice, the post of mine doesn't say "wasn't the real reason";
that's something *you* made up when you posted I'd said that. :)
> So - what is the *real* reason BD has been banned from Malwarebytes?
Several reasons. One, the comments on the blog, strike 1; unfounded
potentially harmful claims you left on the blog, actually. Posting a
nudie pic as an easter present to me, strike 2. Having the pic deleted,
told you had to have known that wasn't okay, and then posting it again;
strike 3. Result: your account was banned.
You have since taken it upon yourself to create a new account; knowing
you are not welcome (hence: banned). That account has also been banned.
This is not how you re-establish peaceful dialogue and get a ban lifted.
It's how you take a ban and make it permanent instead. You have much to
learn about the internet BD, and evidently; how not to treat people.
********************************************************************
Thank you for your comments, Dustin.
For other readers, this is what seems to have upset the apple-cart:-
I have been researching malware for over four years now (as a user, not
a guru!) and I now wonder how sure one can be that Malwarebytes is run
by /good/ guys.
What a super ruse it would be - to clear a machine of everyone else's
'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed on the
user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?
Cybercrime has risen exponentially since Malwarebytes was first founded
in 2004.
See: http://www.malwarebytes.org/about.php
It's probably just a coincidence, eh?!! ;-)
Interestingly, Wikipedia says the launch of Malwarebytes was in January
2008.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8261578886161919944&postID=2398537603557873401&pli=1
--
Dave - Fear not - the truth *will* out! :)
~BD~
> because the admins didn't
> want him having an account there
Dustin - it's comments like that which *feed* my curiosity! :)
Just *why* don't the 'admins' want me having an account there?
I'd been there a long time and caused no trouble at all. I couldn't
really care less whether or not I'm officially allowed to participate;
if I wish to do I don't believe they'd be able to identify me.
That's by the bye, the more interesting thing is the upset my comment
seems to have had. If everything was kosher not an eyebrow would have
been raised I'm sure.
I remember Giant being bought by Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/dec04/12-16GIANTPR.mspx
There was no Malwarebytes back then.
Out of nowhere they came, as if by magic! :)
There is *still* no snail-mail postal address or contact telephone
number (that I can find) - essential attributes, I've been advised, if a
business seeks total acceptance.
http://www.malwarebytes.org/about.php
I have read all about the partnership with Sunbelt btw.
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Press/Releases/?id=346
**
Another item which attracted my interest some long time ago was the
purchase procedure:
"This order process is conducted by our online reseller cleverbridge AG.
Payment processing and order fulfillment are done by cleverbridge AG,
Brabanter Str. 2-4, 50674 Cologne, Germany."
Why? Because they are charging VAT at 19% instead of the 17.5%
applicable in the UK.
https://store.malwarebytes.org/342/?scope=checkout&cart=29945
Tell me why they chose to use a German operation when currently based in
San Jose, CA., and when Malwarebytes is an Illinois corporation.
OK - it's an Internet company. I know! Forget that. ;-)
--
Dave - I *am* aware of what info I give away: http://browserreport.com/
Bullwinkle
on top of it and it will not fall off when she waddles.
If she sits on you you are a goner.
"JD" <J...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:LeadncBBJ_dVGELW...@posted.grandecom...
Bullwinkle
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hro50a$7v1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Maybe I will act like a grown up soon.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Bullwinkle
You do on the Transgender group.
Stop Cross posting you UK Fuckwit
"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LW...@bt.com...
JD
>snip snip snip
>
>
> Does your momma really let you stay up this late?
Your momma jokes? I give up. You win.
--
JD..
Jenn
> ~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
> However, with that said, if you were a user on my ftp or irc servers here
> and I banned you; and you evaded it more than say once, I would contact
> your ISP for unauthorized access as a SysOp.
>
> In fact, as Jenn is a friend of yours and has prior SysOp experience on
> MSn forums; I'd recommend you consult with her about possible actions
> that could be taken against you, should you desire to continue creating
> bogus accounts.
He didn't create a bogus account. He used a well known nickname that he's
used before, and an identifiable email account. Ya'll are just being hard
cases so you can get back at Dave for questioning whether or not
malwarebytes has any suspicious activity on computers.
> And BD, just so you know, using another email address for yet another
> account signup isn't going to keep you hidden for long. At some point, an
> audit will be performed and like this last time, your fake account(s)
> will show up.
>
> Malwarebytes is in the security business BD, don't mistake them for
> hobbyist forum admins like Jenn.
For a security business, ya'll seem a bit paranoid at the influence Dave has
by asking questions.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> I'm thinking you're exaggerating quite alot, Dustin. Anyone can
>> register under any name on any group. Dave just told you he
>> re-registered. He didn't have to tell you or anyone and could be a
>> member in good standing under any other username and no one would
>> know... but he TOLD you.
> Yes, Jenn. Anyone can re-register under any name in any group. When one
> chooses to do so, knowing full well he is banned (which is why he's
> creating another account in the first place) does *not* in any way show
> good intentions, nor respect of any sort towards the forum admins.
Again, it's exaggerating what he did. Ya'll want to exact a *punishment* on
Dave because ya'll didn't like him asking questions. If a buddy of the core
group did something similar, there would be no punishment. Ya'll want him
to show some sort of remorse and humility and apologize all over the place
and beg forgiveness so you can see that he has taken his punishment like a
real man. It's a control issue... you can't control him asking questions,
but you can *punish* him and hold him to a higher standard than ya'll would
anyone else. That's what it's all about because he obviously isn't a threat
to the group itself in any way and has no intentions of hurting anyone
there. It's not professional behavior, imo.
> If anything, it further justifies the initial ban that was set on his
> account.
No it doesn't. The ban was imposed arbitrarily w/o any warning.
> Further, He wouldn't have to tell me or anyone else he did this. As the
> forum admins do audit for security purposes on occasion; his new userid
> along with IP would be flagged as belonging to a now banned userID. Ie:
> he would be caught eventually.
uh huh .... it's clearly a silly ban and unnecessary.... but, hey ... if
Malwarebytes admins want to be seen as hard cases going after someone who
simply asks questions and posts a harmless image, they have that right to
look like total hard cases. It doesn't make me want to join the forum,
myself.
> Clearly you know little about the options available to someone, should
> they wish to use them.
>
So enlighten me ... I'm fairly sure I understand bans and how they should
be used, so you can skip that tutorial.
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>>> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you
>>> forged yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on
>>> you, and then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable,
>>> frakking laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
>> I'm thinking you're exaggerating quite alot, Dustin. Anyone can
>> register under any name on any group. Dave just told you he
>> re-registered. He didn't have to tell you or anyone and could be a
>> member in good standing under any other username and no one would
>> know... but he TOLD you.
> I disagree, Jenn. Anyone can register with any name the person desires,
> so long as the follow the forum rules. Having an ID banned and creating
> anotherone does not follow the rules; and it can result in tresspass
> complaints to his service provider. The fact he was banned negated his
> privledges on that site. Accessing that site or any other is a privledge,
> not a right and the site admins do have options.
You're entitled to disagree. The admins are also entitled to do as they
please. I just does not show a professional response to the supposed
infractions ya'll say Dave is guilty of... Hey ... we've had this
discussion before about me being a sysop for MSN. Dave is not dangerous,
isn't a pornographer, and isn't a pedofile and really is no danger to hack
anyones pc, either. Any ban applied to someone who isn't a thread should be
temporary until issues can be cleared up. For that matter, it should have
been discussed within the thread you pointed me to on SE, which it wasn't.
Yeah.. it's just my opinion, but my opinion is based on experience dealing
with the scum on the internet and banning them, instead of wasting time
banning people who ask questions that are harmless, yet irritating to the
admin there.
> Secondly, He didn't have to tell me anything about creating a new user
> account. The site is routely checked to ensure security is being
> maintained. His new account would have been flagged using any number of
> criteria. I'm not going to get into specifics of how it works, but to
> assume he or anyone else can create a new ID after losing another one; is
> foolish and somewhat arrogant. Not to mention, highly incorrect. You do
> not have anonymity on the internet, you have a false sense of it instead.
Want to bet? I was a sysop for many years and the only people who knew I
was a female were the other sysops I worked with. Everyone else thought I
was a man.
> The fact he had to register under another name because the admins didn't
> want him having an account there is actually a form of digital criminal
> tresspass.
He shouldn't have to re-register... ya'll are treating him like he is
dangerous so someone on the malwarebytes forum. That's just overkill, imo.
Jenn
If you want to get technical.. the woman has some artwork covering her
breasts, so there was no total frontal nudity. Granted, the artwork didn't
cover everything, but it wasn't porn OR obscene OR sexually-oriented. I am a
woman and would know if it was any of those things, btw.
> The fact he has now gone and created another account; which he did get
> caught:
Already addressed.....
> I believe, Jenn, creating another account to evade a BAN set by an
> administrator is also against the terms of service.
>
Just how is he attempting to evade anything?
Jenn
I wasn't joking ..... you think foul language is cute or it makes you look
more like a man, or something. That's childish behavior.
~BD~
> So enlighten me ... I'm fairly sure I understand bans and how they should
> be used, so you can skip that tutorial.
You make interesting comments, Jenn (as always! <s>)
The way this thread is panning out, it should provide useful material
for your forthcoming book - make sure you save the relevant bits! ;-)
--
Dave
~BD~
Thank you little sister! :)
Dave
~BD~
> I am a woman .....
With lovely green eyes! :)
Dave
Jenn
ROFLOL .... You know me too well ... hahahaaahah I really don't take to
people who abuse their authority.
Jenn
> Jenn wrote words of support!
>
> Thank you little sister! :)
>
Happy to say how I feel.. big brother! :)
Jenn
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> I am a woman .....
>
>
> With lovely green eyes! :)
haaaahaha {{{{{{bats green eyes}}}}}}}
~BD~
> "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9fCdndt1qcts2H3W...@bt.com...
>> Jenn wrote words of support!
>>
>> Thank you little sister! :)
>>
>
>
> Happy to say how I feel.. big brother! :)
Vbg :)
~BD~
>
> For a security business, ya'll seem a bit paranoid at the influence Dave has
> by asking questions.
>
>
Does that seem just a wee bit strange to you, too, Jenn?
--
Dave - it's just a hinky feeling, but .........
Jenn
> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> For a security business, ya'll seem a bit paranoid at the influence Dave
>> has
>> by asking questions.
>>
>>
>
> Does that seem just a wee bit strange to you, too, Jenn?
>
... more like I'm not surprised because some people become little hitlers
when it comes to having a bit of pseudo power ... they want to punish people
when it isn't necessary and think that makes them, as mods/admins, look all
powerful and in control. Half the time it just shows how insecure
mods/admins can be in their own positions because they don't know how to
actually use their authority properly without abusing it.
Heather
Oh ferchrissakes!! BD is either a paranoid troublemaker or mentally
deficient, or both.....and I can't believe how stupid and childish you two
are!!
I agree with JD in that you two should be totally killfiled and ignored!!
Unfortunately, BD the retard keeps morphing and I refuse to waste any more
time and space killfiling him.
Take your sh*t disturbing foolishness somewhere else and let people with
more than two functioning brain cells use this news group without your
idiotic interference!!
HF.......and the only hinky feeling I get is in regard to BD's calculated
nastiness which he knows will solicit a response......so piss off, the pair
of you!!
Jenn
news:hrpmof$68j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cbmdnY54D-eyyH3W...@bt.com...
>> Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>> For a security business, ya'll seem a bit paranoid at the influence Dave
>>> has
>>> by asking questions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Does that seem just a wee bit strange to you, too, Jenn?
>>
>> --
>> Dave - it's just a hinky feeling, but .........
> Oh ferchrissakes!! BD is either a paranoid troublemaker or mentally
> deficient, or both.....and I can't believe how stupid and childish you two
> are!!
naaaaaa Dave is as sane and capable as everyone else here......
> I agree with JD in that you two should be totally killfiled and ignored!!
> Unfortunately, BD the retard keeps morphing and I refuse to waste any more
> time and space killfiling him.
Well.. you happen to be agreeing with a persona that appears to have a low
IQ, and uses sayings that contain foul language to bolster his appearance of
false superiority. Hey, if you want to align yourself with someone like
that.. go right ahead.
Question.. what exactly do YOU contribute to this group? I've been reading
for a while and haven't seen you do anything but jump into conversations so
you can diss someone else.
> Take your sh*t disturbing foolishness somewhere else and let people with
> more than two functioning brain cells use this news group without your
> idiotic interference!!
You first.........LOL
> HF.......and the only hinky feeling I get is in regard to BD's calculated
> nastiness which he knows will solicit a response......so piss off, the
> pair of you!!
ahh no wonder you hand out with JD ... you can't get through an entire post
without needing foul language to bolster your point of view, too.