MBAM 1.34 Released Today.

Discussion in 'Spyware' started by 1PW, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. 1PW

    1PW Guest

    *** *** *** Cross-Posted *** *** ***

    MBAM version 1.34 was released today.


    1PW, Feb 12, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, Pete.

    I am, though, just a little confused. You have said elsewhere that you "only
    have eyes for Linux"

    MBAM and Linux do not mix, viz:-

    a.. Version: 1.34
    a.. File Size: 2.74 MB
    a.. Operating Systems: Microsoft ® Windows 2000, XP, Vista (32-bit only).

    How would a Windows user know that installing MBAM really is a good thing to
    do? Whilst the programme may well remove all manner of 'nasties' from the
    machine of a user, how can that user be certain that it hasn't actually
    *installed* some badware too?

    As you don't use Windows, you would never know, would you? <smile>
    ~BD~, Feb 12, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. 1PW

    1PW Guest

    misquote... Minus twenty.
    Faulty logic? What did the educational YouTube video link, I sent you,
    show? Minus twenty-five.
    Fair question. But answered with a question:

    How would one know if information received in these newsgroups is

    Hint: My last MBAM 1.34/1752 full scan time was about 42 minutes.

    ....and I use the paid version of MBAM. True statements.

    The plot thickens Dave. Is it time to re-examine your logic?

    1PW, Feb 12, 2009
  4. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    I don't like losing points! In-line responses:-

    You are correct. <pout>

    You actually said "You have *never* read a word from me that didn't
    originate from within a Linus Torvalds inspired system".
    Hmmm! Maybe - not sure about that. Perhaps you are running Windows *within*
    Linux - as a virtual machine. Surely, though, in such a case you'd never
    need to 'clean' Windows with Mbam -would you?

    There is absolutely NO way of knowing - unless the Spirit tells you/me. I'm
    led to believe that I can trust *you* - so there!

    It seems as if it *might* be a faulty assumption.

    I have no understanding of why anyone using Linux as their operating system
    would ever need to use MBAM - unless it was on a different personal Windows
    machine, the computer of a family member, a friend or even a client/customer

    Not really. Whilst I may be wrong and/or misguided from time to time - I'm
    *still* one of the good guys!

    ~BD~, Feb 12, 2009
  5. Another puzzle for Dave? No note passing this time, I promise.
    FromTheRafters, Feb 12, 2009
  6. 1PW

    1PW Guest

    If I catch the two of you passing notes again, both of you will be sent
    home with a note. :)

    Top of the morning to you FTR...

    1PW, Feb 12, 2009
  7. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    Top of the morning?

    It's nearly my bed time! :)

    ~BD~, Feb 12, 2009
  8. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    That's a start!

    Much better!

    Perhaps you refer to the single email which you *sent* to me?

    Not good! An answer to my query may have helped.

    You drive a hard bargain, Sir!

    Nothing is ever quite as it seems!

    I have a guardian angel, of that I have no doubt.

    I do not lie or steal - nor do I seek to kill my fellow human beings. There
    are some using the 'net who do - but I am *not* one of them!

    Go here and type in "~" without the quotes

    I've been fishing for a long time! ;)

    ~BD~, Feb 12, 2009
  9. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    I'm struggling now! :)

    You've lost me. Will you explain, please?

    I did read on but am still no wiser. Sorry.

    That's good to know! Maybe you have inside information.

    I have not, actually, said that it did. I just felt it important that others
    recognise that loading *any* programme /might/ do bad things as well as
    good. In the fora I have visited 'helpers' give instructions which are
    blindly followed.

    Time to update, Pete!

    My scan result:-

    Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.34
    Database version: 1757
    Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3

    13/02/2009 09:03:00
    mbam-log-2009-02-13 (09-03-00).txt

    Scan type: Full Scan (C:\|D:\|)
    Objects scanned: 153212
    Time elapsed: 44 minute(s), 33 second(s)

    Memory Processes Infected: 0
    Memory Modules Infected: 0
    Registry Keys Infected: 0
    Registry Values Infected: 0
    Registry Data Items Infected: 0
    Folders Infected: 0
    Files Infected: 0

    Memory Processes Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Memory Modules Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Keys Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Values Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Registry Data Items Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Folders Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    Files Infected:
    (No malicious items detected)

    I have no experience of running another OS within Linux. I had a notion that
    it would be a bit like the Google Chrome browser - where after a session
    using the 'trial' OS it would simply be discarded totally and a 'fresh'
    version used on the next occasion.

    I now suspect that it's not like that at all!
    Thank you! :)

    Did you go there and note that I am an Honorary Member? I see no sign of you
    there, yet you have paid your fee. I'm sure you could help many on the forum
    there. Maybe you are registered with a different user name? If you are, you
    can PM me there (~BD~)
    I have thought about that but cannot tie up the ends. Help needed to
    conclude this! <s>

    ~BD~, Feb 13, 2009
  10. 1PW

    Dustin Cook Guest

    Just one question.... Are you high?
    Dustin Cook, Feb 16, 2009
  11. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    No, Sir!

    Still naive? Probably!

    Correct me where I am wrong, please.

    My understanding is that 'malware' can be, and is, installed surrepticiously
    upon millions of computers around the world. Often, a user is unaware that a
    machine has been compromised.

    There are many 'help' forums available on the Internet. It seems only
    logical that some such operations may take advantage of inexperienced folk
    who do, without a second thought, download all manner of executable
    programmes onto their machines (as instructed by a 'helper').

    Once a machine has been declared 'clean' - how can the average user possibly
    know that something 'nastie' has not been *added* to their machine if it
    appears to operate 'normally'?

    This couldn't/wouldn't happen? Are you sure?
    ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009
  12. 1PW

    1PW Guest

    Almost a bit like Conficker, huh? Reads like good, safe computing and
    realtime antimalware applications are needed Dave.
    Reputation leads to trust. If David Lipman suggested an MBAM scan for a
    particular infection you described in /your/ computer, what would you do?
    Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), realtime antimalware scans, or
    flatten, rebuild, restore from backups.
    You already know that answer.

    Trust must start somewhere and some paranoia is useful.

    MBAM has our trust through its reputation Dave. A bogus MBAM /could/ be
    downloaded from a disreputable source of course. But by only
    downloading from, it comes as close to 100% trust as is

    Some software authors will provide md5/sha1 hashes or PGP/GPG signed
    files that accompany the download and this is welcomed by some, but some
    reluctance on the part of authors and users is making that level of
    verification difficult. How then do we implement: trust but verify?

    If one is paralyzed by so much suspicion and doubt, then it's probably
    best to leave your computer turned off or only surf the net and do email
    through LiveCDs.

    What will you do now Dave?

    1PW, Feb 17, 2009
  13. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    Before I answer you in this thread, Pete, I'd like you to contact me again
    by email ........... and this time grant permission for me to respond to
    you in like manner. I respected your wishes previously - if you really are
    one of the good guys, please respond to this request. Thank you. :)
    ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009
  14. 1PW

    Max Wachtel Guest

    ~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
    You still haven't figured out who the good guys are yet?
    I'm not sure if there is any hope for you......
    Max Wachtel, Feb 17, 2009
  15. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    When I first came to the groups I believed *everyone*. In the case of the
    Microsoft groups I naively thought everything was being moderated and
    checked by Microsoft itself. Doh!

    I'd been led to believe that any 'bad' posts would be scorned by 'the good
    guys' - just like folk gang-up on The Real Truth MVP (PCButts1).

    One of those supposedly 'good guys' was/is Robear Dyer (PA Bear) but he has
    lied - he's told everyone 'here' who cares to read that I (~BD~, BoaterDave,
    Beady, Imbeady2 and John_D) have been banned/sacked by a number of ISP's.
    That is one simple fact which I KNOW, categorically, is a lie. It simply
    isn't true. Or maybe it wasn't really him posting at all - it could have
    been an imposter, couldn't it? ;)
    ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009

  16. You should only download & run software on your computer that you trust,
    you need to decide what level of verification you require, and make
    appropriate decisions.

    John Mason Jr, Feb 17, 2009
  17. 1PW

    Max Wachtel Guest

    ~BD~, after much thought, came up with this jewel:
    I can't believe your still ranting about bear-give it a rest (makes you
    look like a troll).
    Max Wachtel, Feb 17, 2009
  18. 1PW

    ~BD~ Guest

    Thank you for taking the trouble to respond, John. I *do* understand!

    I do not doubt the credibility of MBAM even though the facility came from
    nowhere in a very short time - what is it now? Three years perhaps? In a
    similar timescale, SuperAntiSpyware came from nowhere too. I still remember
    that expression "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

    My point was - still is - that when people experience computer problems, and
    end up in newsgroups seeking help, they are directed to unknown places (for
    them). They are then invited to download all manner of 'cleaning' material -
    about which they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever - and they put
    blind trust in their 'helper'.

    Such activity, IMO, is wide open to abuse.
    ~BD~, Feb 17, 2009
  19. 1PW

    nemo_outis Guest

    When I drive down the street I put blind trust in my fellow motorists to
    stay in their lane and not ram me head-on. Such activity, IMO, is wide
    open to abuse.

    Life is a risky business - no one gets out alive. Get used to it.

    nemo_outis, Feb 18, 2009
  20. It is called "human nature" and you are right - it is easily
    exploited. Some refer to it as "social engineering" when
    software is crafted to exploit human nature. It is by far
    the most prevalent vulnerability in computer security. You
    spin the wheel and you take your chances. Usenet is the
    "wild west" of the internet.

    You just have to make your own decision about trust, and
    hopefully it is an informed decision.
    FromTheRafters, Feb 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.