Anti-Spyware Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Clarification of a few points.

 
 
~BD~
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 06:29 AM
On 07/07/2011 02:52, Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> news:iv2okl$oin$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On 06/07/2011 23:29, Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>>> news:iv2mua$euf$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>>> You specifically asked if malwarebytes would install a rootkit
>>>>> while telling the user everything is okay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said you had checked to see if it did so.
>>>
>>> I said I took the program apart to crack it; the side effect of my
>>> analysis for the cracking showed that it only does as it claims to
>>> do, nothing else.
>>>
>>>> *Why* did you check, Dustin?
>>>
>>> I wanted it for free and didn't want to use a keygen. I told you
>>> that already.

>>
>> That seems strange. *Anyone* may have it *for free* - can't they?

>
> Nothing strange about it. As you well know, although you're not saying,
> the free version doesn't include the scheduler nor the resident
> protection module. Those you're supposed to pay for.


And you feel it reasonable that you obtained it *without* paying? Why
so? Wouldn't your ex-employer consider your action *stealing*?

>> Here's the URL:
>> http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/malwarebytes_free

>
> Take a closer look.


Not sure what point you are trying to make, Dustin. I am aware that
there are two versions, one of which is free.

>>> Thanks for confirming that you did indeed claim malwarebytes was
>>> doing something bad tho. I've sent this to one of my contacts, and
>>> I will send them your contact information too. Just because you
>>> live in the UK doesn't mean they have no options with regard to
>>> your slandering a good product and trying to harm their reputation
>>> as a good company with a legitimate product.

>>
>> No one has slandered anyone, Dustin.

>
> Call it what you will, fact is, you've claimed malwarebytes might do
> something nasty. You pick on them because they felt the need to
> rightfully remove you from the forum, as they realized what a POS loser
> you are.


I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something nasty.

You may be interested to learn that neither Symantec nor Kaspersky have
declined to communicate with BD. Oh, nor has Sophos!

>> However, I do believe it best for any doubts about software to be
>> raised publically. I'm guessing that few people will have the
>> technical ability to determine exactly what such software does when
>> it is installed on a computer - even a 'clean' one.

>
> That would be a bad guess on your part then. The skills I have are
> shared by many in the research field, on both sides of the fence. If
> malwarebytes contained something not mentioned on it's site or the docs
> that's harmful, it wouldn't get far before others like me, noticed and
> said something.


Now _you_ are making an assumption, Dustin. Which of these *many*
skilled folk has actually examined anti-malware software forensically?

> Some dipshits tried the same smear campaign against BugHunter. 6 years
> later, still no malicious code or acts found or shown.


I have never suspected BugHunter of being malicious in any way.

>> Who else, apart from you, Dustin, has given Malwarebytes and
>> SuperAntispyware a clean bill of health after forensic examination?

>
> I wasn't aware they *needed* a clean bill of health.


Folk *need* to know that software, only available on-line, which is
purported to have been designed to *help* people, *is* squeaky-clean.

I repeat my question. Which independent body has actually checked the
software in the manner I suggested earlier? i.e. Downloaded the software
onto a known clean computer and then forensically examined said machine.

D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 08:42 AM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:29:19 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> You may be interested to learn that neither Symantec nor Kaspersky have
> declined to communicate with BD. Oh, nor has Sophos!


Well,that shows they all have auto-responders that work.



--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Foldes
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 12:16 PM

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message news:iv3jo2$2dp$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 07/07/2011 02:52, Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>> news:iv2okl$oin$(E-Mail Removed):



Why the crosspost here BD ? This personal attack of yours towards Dustin has nothing
to do with posting to this spyware group. Keep it in the scorched-earth

^%$(*&()

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave U. Random
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 02:47 PM
In article <iv3jo2$2dp$(E-Mail Removed)>
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2011 02:52, Dustin wrote:
> > ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> > news:iv2okl$oin$(E-Mail Removed):
> >
> >> On 06/07/2011 23:29, Dustin wrote:
> >>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> >>> news:iv2mua$euf$(E-Mail Removed):
> >>>
> >>>>> You specifically asked if malwarebytes would install a rootkit
> >>>>> while telling the user everything is okay.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You said you had checked to see if it did so.
> >>>
> >>> I said I took the program apart to crack it; the side effect of my
> >>> analysis for the cracking showed that it only does as it claims to
> >>> do, nothing else.
> >>>
> >>>> *Why* did you check, Dustin?
> >>>
> >>> I wanted it for free and didn't want to use a keygen. I told you
> >>> that already.
> >>
> >> That seems strange. *Anyone* may have it *for free* - can't they?

> >
> > Nothing strange about it. As you well know, although you're not saying,
> > the free version doesn't include the scheduler nor the resident
> > protection module. Those you're supposed to pay for.

>
> And you feel it reasonable that you obtained it *without* paying? Why
> so? Wouldn't your ex-employer consider your action *stealing*?
>
> >> Here's the URL:
> >> http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/malwarebytes_free

> >
> > Take a closer look.

>
> Not sure what point you are trying to make, Dustin. I am aware that
> there are two versions, one of which is free.
>
> >>> Thanks for confirming that you did indeed claim malwarebytes was
> >>> doing something bad tho. I've sent this to one of my contacts, and
> >>> I will send them your contact information too. Just because you
> >>> live in the UK doesn't mean they have no options with regard to
> >>> your slandering a good product and trying to harm their reputation
> >>> as a good company with a legitimate product.


What a pathetic, scared little **** this Dustbin character is. He's
like a continually whining 6-year-old who is forever threatening to
tell Mommy on one of his siblings. His life is filled with little else
except fear, much like that of a delusional cobra who feels constantly
confronted and threatened by some imaginary mongoose. Pathetic.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 10:47 PM
~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
news:iv3jo2$2dp$(E-Mail Removed):

> On 07/07/2011 02:52, Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>> news:iv2okl$oin$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> On 06/07/2011 23:29, Dustin wrote:
>>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>>>> news:iv2mua$euf$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>>> You specifically asked if malwarebytes would install a rootkit
>>>>>> while telling the user everything is okay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said you had checked to see if it did so.
>>>>
>>>> I said I took the program apart to crack it; the side effect of
>>>> my analysis for the cracking showed that it only does as it
>>>> claims to do, nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>> *Why* did you check, Dustin?
>>>>
>>>> I wanted it for free and didn't want to use a keygen. I told you
>>>> that already.
>>>
>>> That seems strange. *Anyone* may have it *for free* - can't they?

>>
>> Nothing strange about it. As you well know, although you're not
>> saying, the free version doesn't include the scheduler nor the
>> resident protection module. Those you're supposed to pay for.

>
> And you feel it reasonable that you obtained it *without* paying?
> Why so? Wouldn't your ex-employer consider your action *stealing*?


I reverse engineer software, David. I do it for my own private usage; but
on a technical point, you've got me on copyright infringement; not
stealing.

> Not sure what point you are trying to make, Dustin. I am aware that
> there are two versions, one of which is free.


Hence, the one I cracked obviously; wouldn't be the free version. Your
comment about "seems strange" is thus, trolling.

>> Call it what you will, fact is, you've claimed malwarebytes might
>> do something nasty. You pick on them because they felt the need to
>> rightfully remove you from the forum, as they realized what a POS
>> loser you are.

>
> I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something nasty.


all the while, specifically naming malwarebytes for your "example". I
doubt it was just a coincidence.

> You may be interested to learn that neither Symantec nor Kaspersky
> have declined to communicate with BD. Oh, nor has Sophos!


They are very large companies by comparison. It's likely you just haven't
made the rounds in all the helpdesk callcenters. You intentionally
mislead people here, into thinking you are special. lol.

> Now _you_ are making an assumption, Dustin. Which of these *many*
> skilled folk has actually examined anti-malware software
> forensically?


I'm not making any assumptions. Haven't you learned yet? I won't tell you
something that isn't true, *unlike* yourself. I know some people birddog
me; they will for the rest of my time online. hehehe. If I ****up,
they'll nail me to a cross. I will not provide you any names nor software
packages examined which are antimalware apps or antivirus apps. Except to
say that many legitimate programs sometimes get submitted for analysis
via the same means you'd send a malware sample. I've seen everything from
autocad to notepad..

>> Some dipshits tried the same smear campaign against BugHunter. 6
>> years later, still no malicious code or acts found or shown.

>
> I have never suspected BugHunter of being malicious in any way.


A bit pointless to do so, it has a clean track record. Indisputable.

> Folk *need* to know that software, only available on-line, which is
> purported to have been designed to *help* people, *is*
> squeaky-clean.


Well, David, a certain level of trust is required at this point. Either
you trust malwarebytes or you don't.

> I repeat my question. Which independent body has actually checked
> the software in the manner I suggested earlier? i.e. Downloaded the
> software onto a known clean computer and then forensically examined
> said machine.


**** Off, David.


--
(Hey) I keep on thinking that it's
(Hey) all done and all over now (whoa)
You keep on thinking you can save me save me
(Hey) My ship is sinking but it's
(Hey) all good and I can go down (whoa)
You've got me thinking that the party's all over

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 11:01 PM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:47:47 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> BD wrote:


>> I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something nasty.

>
> all the while, specifically naming malwarebytes for your "example". I
> doubt it was just a coincidence.


Of course not. He refuses to accept responsibility for getting himself
booted from their forum, and instead made up some criminality on the part
of MBAM as an excuse to try to get back at them.

It's basically- I'm ****ed off that you booted me and to get back at you
I'll slimily diss your product in the hope I can punish you financially.

--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 11:05 PM
Aardvark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:iv5dro$9hg$(E-Mail Removed):

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:47:47 +0000, Dustin wrote:
>
>> BD wrote:

>
>>> I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something
>>> nasty.

>>
>> all the while, specifically naming malwarebytes for your "example".
>> I doubt it was just a coincidence.

>
> Of course not. He refuses to accept responsibility for getting
> himself booted from their forum, and instead made up some
> criminality on the part of MBAM as an excuse to try to get back at
> them.


Yep, he's a pos trollish ****head. People should have the information
they need to express how they feel either in person, on the phone, or
via snail mail. It's difficult as hell not to press "send".

> It's basically- I'm ****ed off that you booted me and to get back at
> you I'll slimily diss your product in the hope I can punish you
> financially.


Exactly.


--
(Hey) I keep on thinking that it's
(Hey) all done and all over now (whoa)
You keep on thinking you can save me save me
(Hey) My ship is sinking but it's
(Hey) all good and I can go down (whoa)
You've got me thinking that the party's all over

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 11:09 PM
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:05:52 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> It's difficult as hell not to press "send".


When the optimum moment comes, you'll recognise it. Hold fire until you
see the whites of their eyes.



--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 11:11 PM
Aardvark wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:47:47 +0000, Dustin wrote:
>
>> BD wrote:

>
>>> I've asked if such a cleaning programme *could* do something nasty.

>>
>> all the while, specifically naming malwarebytes for your "example". I
>> doubt it was just a coincidence.



> Of course not. He refuses to accept responsibility for getting himself
> booted from their forum, and instead made up some criminality on the
> part of MBAM as an excuse to try to get back at them.
>
> It's basically- I'm ****ed off that you booted me and to get back at
> you I'll slimily diss your product in the hope I can punish you
> financially.


I wouldn't have thought to ask the question he asked, but it seemed like a
valid question to me.

Is it possible for a malware cleaner program to put it's own 'root-kit'
hidden somewhere and then say the system is clean?

I don't know what a root-kit is, but I've been reading some of the thread
off and on. Why get insulted that someone wants to put Malwarebytes to the
ultimate analysis? If nothing is wrong and it isn't doing anything wrong,
then the question should just be answered with a, "NO ... Malwarebytes
doesn't do that and here is the proof".......

I like Malwarebytes, myself, and have never had any problems using it, but
I'm not into analyzing malware and such things either. It's a business...
aren't they used to being put to the test?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      07-07-2011, 11:46 PM
"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:iv5ef0$kla$(E-Mail Removed):

> Is it possible for a malware cleaner program to put it's own
> 'root-kit' hidden somewhere and then say the system is clean?


Sure, but then, that malware cleaner wouldn't last very long. It's
subject to constant peer review and 3rd party independent analysis.

> I don't know what a root-kit is


I'm not surprised.

> thread off and on. Why get insulted that someone wants to put
> Malwarebytes to the ultimate analysis? If nothing is wrong and it
> isn't doing anything wrong, then the question should just be
> answered with a, "NO ... Malwarebytes doesn't do that and here is
> the proof".......


I'm not insulted that someone wanted to put malwarebytes to some sort
of test; As I said, it's already been peer reviewed, and is constantly
under scrutiny; as all apps of it's nature are.

If something was amiss, they wouldn't be able to hide it for very long.
I already answered BD's question and my proof was that I disassembled
the executable. BD in his slimey fashion won't accept the proof.

> it, but I'm not into analyzing malware and such things either. It's
> a business... aren't they used to being put to the test?


They always are, Jenn. They aren't malicious and you only display more
astounding ignorance carrying on like this. Computers seem to be
magical to you and BD.. I just don't get that.


--
(Hey) I keep on thinking that it's
(Hey) all done and all over now (whoa)
You keep on thinking you can save me save me
(Hey) My ship is sinking but it's
(Hey) all good and I can go down (whoa)
You've got me thinking that the party's all over

 
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
MS newsserver(s) - clarification requested ~BD~ Security Software 39 06-08-2009 07:05 AM
Clarification in WSUS Shanthi Security Software 6 01-01-2008 05:11 PM
Clarification Steflb Computer Security 6 24-08-2006 09:14 PM
MS04-028 Clarification needed Henrik Zawischa Security Software 5 17-09-2004 09:03 AM
Take ownership in 2003 - clarification Greg Brown Security Software 0 05-08-2003 04:45 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.