Anti-Spyware Forums


Reply
 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      05-06-2011, 02:45 AM
1PW <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:iscp35$t1c$(E-Mail Removed):

> On 6/1/2011 15:33, Jeff T wrote:
>> I've got SUPERAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes. Does sit hurt anything
>> to use both?

>
> Hello Jeff:
>
> No valid reports have shown that their scanners interfere with the
> other.
>
> To that end, neither requires the other be in any exclusionary file.
>
> I've run the PRO versions of both together for years with zero
> trouble.


You really should *NOT* be running both of them resident. It's a data
corruption road waiting to happen. Don't run two antivirus at same time,
don't run multiple antimalware at the same time. I honestly don't know
why some people think you double your protection by doing so. You don't.
You drain resources, and cause potential problems for yourself, but you
do NOT gain from doing it.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      05-06-2011, 07:29 AM
Dustin wrote:

>G. Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> I don't like running any malware programs in resident mode. System
>> performance mostly. I've never run two resident malware proggys
>> together and introduced malware intentionally, that would be a neat
>> experiment to see which one locks the file first.

>
>Just depends which one has the lowest OS hooks in place. MBAM's low level
>file driver I think! is actually hooking lower than SASs...



How would one archive such a "hook"? By taking control away from
Windows, to a low-level proprietary file driver? Is that how rootkits
do it too?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      06-06-2011, 05:03 AM
G. Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Dustin wrote:
>
>>G. Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> I don't like running any malware programs in resident mode.
>>> System performance mostly. I've never run two resident malware
>>> proggys together and introduced malware intentionally, that would
>>> be a neat experiment to see which one locks the file first.

>>
>>Just depends which one has the lowest OS hooks in place. MBAM's low
>>level file driver I think! is actually hooking lower than SASs...

>
>
> How would one archive such a "hook"? By taking control away from
> Windows, to a low-level proprietary file driver? Is that how
> rootkits do it too?


Yea.. I get into any specifics on how malwarebytes works internally and
I'll be in a courtroom.. sorry man.. but.. er, if you figure it out on
your own, thats on you. I just can't even point you in the right
direction.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      08-06-2011, 05:09 PM
Dustin wrote:
> G. Morgan<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> G. Morgan<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> I don't like running any malware programs in resident mode.
>>>> System performance mostly. I've never run two resident malware
>>>> proggys together and introduced malware intentionally, that would
>>>> be a neat experiment to see which one locks the file first.
>>>
>>> Just depends which one has the lowest OS hooks in place. MBAM's low
>>> level file driver I think! is actually hooking lower than SASs...

>>
>>
>> How would one archive such a "hook"? By taking control away from
>> Windows, to a low-level proprietary file driver? Is that how
>> rootkits do it too?

>
> Yea.. I get into any specifics on how malwarebytes works internally and
> I'll be in a courtroom.. sorry man.. but.. er, if you figure it out on
> your own, thats on you. I just can't even point you in the right
> direction.


You will be well aware that cybercrime has escalated exponentially over
the past 6/7 years. Co-incidentally I'm sure(!)--> since, in fact,
Malwarebytes was launched.

Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean computer
and then run the programme - the result should of course be that nothing
untoward would have been found. Has that machine then been examined
forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!) surreptitiously
installed it's very own malware - maybe even a rootkit?

In normal course, no one who might have used MBAM to erradicate malware
would be remotely concerned once their computer appeared to be operating
satisfactorily - would they?!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      08-06-2011, 06:38 PM
~BD~ nymshifting as "Anonymous" wrote:

> Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean computer
> and then run the programme - the result should of course be that nothing
> untoward would have been found. Has that machine then been examined
> forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!) surreptitiously
> installed it's very own malware - maybe even a rootkit?


Go play in a canal, Dave...

--
-bts
-In a broadband world, you are just a dialup
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      08-06-2011, 07:56 PM
Anonymous <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:isoadg$gcb$(E-Mail Removed):

> You will be well aware that cybercrime has escalated exponentially
> over the past 6/7 years. Co-incidentally I'm sure(!)--> since, in
> fact, Malwarebytes was launched.


Hello David. I'm aware of the "cybercrime" LOL, threats even today.
Yes.

> Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean
> computer and then run the programme - the result should of course be
> that nothing untoward would have been found. Has that machine then
> been examined forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!)
> surreptitiously installed it's very own malware - maybe even a
> rootkit?


I require clarification. Are you saying you believe malwarebytes might
be doing something nefarious, David?

> In normal course, no one who might have used MBAM to erradicate
> malware would be remotely concerned once their computer appeared to
> be operating satisfactorily - would they?!!


Again,

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean to say here. Please
clarify.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      08-06-2011, 09:56 PM

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:isofjv$3u4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> ~BD~ nymshifting as "Anonymous" wrote:
>
>> Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean
>> computer
>> and then run the programme - the result should of course be that
>> nothing
>> untoward would have been found. Has that machine then been examined
>> forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!) surreptitiously
>> installed it's very own malware - maybe even a rootkit?

>
> Go play in a canal, Dave...


slmgr.vbs -skms <my kms server>
pause
slmgr.vbs -ipk 33PXH-7Y6KF-2VJC9-XBBR8-HVTHH
pause
slmgr.vbs -ato



 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-06-2011, 01:13 AM
Dustin wrote:

>> Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean
>> computer and then run the programme - the result should of course be
>> that nothing untoward would have been found. Has that machine then
>> been examined forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!)
>> surreptitiously installed it's very own malware - maybe even a
>> rootkit?

>
>I require clarification. Are you saying you believe malwarebytes might
>be doing something nefarious, David?


I would like to know the same thing. What mechanism allows the MBAM
program (and others like it) to hook into the file system.

That is not a trade secret I'm sure.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-06-2011, 01:27 AM
G. Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Dustin wrote:
>
>>> Are you aware of anyone who has loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean
>>> computer and then run the programme - the result should of course

be
>>> that nothing untoward would have been found. Has that machine then
>>> been examined forensically to determine if MBAM has (just perhaps!)
>>> surreptitiously installed it's very own malware - maybe even a
>>> rootkit?

>>
>>I require clarification. Are you saying you believe malwarebytes

might
>>be doing something nefarious, David?

>
> I would like to know the same thing. What mechanism allows the MBAM
> program (and others like it) to hook into the file system.


Evidently you didn't catch my clarification request... MBAM has
proprietary technology which allows it to hook lol (hehehe.. damn, I
wish I could tell you) the file system. MBAM is NOT malicious and
doesn't install a rootkit or do anything else. I just can't tell you
any specifics man, sorry. If you think it's malicious, your about as
bright as BD.

Did you seriously not catch what I really intended with my question?

> That is not a trade secret I'm sure.


Sadly, it is. Everybodies is. SuperAntispyware isn't going to cough up
their specs either. LOL.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again
 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      09-06-2011, 01:40 AM
Dustin wrote:

>Evidently you didn't catch my clarification request... MBAM has
>proprietary technology which allows it to hook lol (hehehe.. damn, I
>wish I could tell you) the file system.


And I wish I knew!

> MBAM is NOT malicious and
>doesn't install a rootkit or do anything else. I just can't tell you
>any specifics man, sorry. If you think it's malicious, your about as
>bright as BD.


I don't think it's malicious, it's installed on my machines!


>Did you seriously not catch what I really intended with my question?


Of course I did, we'll see what he comes up with. ;-)

>> That is not a trade secret I'm sure.

>
>Sadly, it is. Everybodies is. SuperAntispyware isn't going to cough up
>their specs either. LOL.


I'm not talking about revealing code, I'm more interested in the
methodology. I guess I will have to do my own research. Maybe I can
get you to confirm or deny my suppositions when I learn a little more?




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MalwareBytes.org slowness resolved Dustin Cook Spyware 0 02-10-2008 10:21 PM
MalWareBytes AntiMalware v1.27 Released Dustin Cook Spyware 4 08-09-2008 11:42 PM
Malwarebytes.com ~BD~ Computer Security 3 12-08-2008 07:44 AM
Experience with MalWareBytes? louise Spyware 1 02-04-2008 10:44 AM
Opinions wanted on Malwarebytes AntiMalware Dustin Cook Spyware 3 17-03-2008 04:00 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 PM.