Re: Multi_VA trashed my system (Can David H Lipman please look a this)

Discussion in 'Spyware' started by Betina, May 15, 2006.

  1. Betina

    kurt wismer Guest

    nor do i have to, only that it *can* contain malware... your assertion
    is that the machines are clean, which means that there isn't malware -
    only you can't prove a negative so you can't be certain they're really
    clean and therefore cannot certify that they're clean... i only have to
    show that it's possible for them to contain malware in order to show
    that the certification is suspect...
    and this is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam...
     
    kurt wismer, May 26, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Betina

    Leythos Guest

    And it's not suspect in a reasonable position, based on years of
    industry experience, so it would stand, the machine, wiped and
    reinstalled in a clean environment would be considered clean.
     
    Leythos, May 26, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Betina

    Leythos Guest

    That's not true, only suspected. Many machines contain many exploits,
    but the exploits are meaningless unless there is a path to exploit them
    - just having a network connection does not mean the can be exploited.
    No, they provide an "Opportunity" for it to become compromised if the
    user/owner doesn't take any precautions on a open network, on a
    protected network the exploits might never be reachable to exploit.
    Which was the point, you agree with me then, the machine "IS" clean when
    returned.
    I install the OS and service packs related to security, which have a
    history of being clean in the public eye. Not all security updates are
    needed for all machines to remain clean, but it's a good idea if you
    don't know where the machine will be used.

    I install software depending on the software and if I feel comfortable
    with it.
    It's a case if industry acceptance, just like malpractice, if the
    "industry" accepts that a wiped/installed machine under certain limits,
    is considered clean, then it's not a liability.
    explained above.
     
    Leythos, May 26, 2006
    #83
  4. Betina

    kurt wismer Guest

    the machine may not be suspect, since the likelihood of it not being
    clean is exceptionally low, however the certification is always suspect
    because it is predicated on faulty logic...

    if the process by which a certification is performed can result in a
    situation where the certification is wrong/false then there is something
    very wrong with that certification process and each set of results it
    produces/has produced are suspect...
     
    kurt wismer, May 26, 2006
    #84
  5. Betina

    bob from Oz Guest

    i just wish Thunderbird had newsgroup plonking built-in. i eagerly
    await the day i can killfile some of these dickheads...

    bob
     
    bob from Oz, May 27, 2006
    #85
  6. Betina

    Leythos Guest

    Stop using an email program, although TB is better then OE, and use a
    normal Usenet client. Super Gravity is free and has been around for a
    long time, and it works quite well.
     
    Leythos, May 27, 2006
    #86
    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.