From: FromTheRafters on
"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)> wrote:
>>The best thing to know would be exactly what was on the exploit
> That's what I'm hoping someone would be able to answer here. But
> these
> newsgroups seem stacked with people who are quick to admonish others
> but not
> add much constructive information.

....they change so fast...

The only way anyone could do that would be if you had posted the address
of the exploit site (munged of course). It might have been in your temp
files, or might still be. Doing it now, would only show what it offers
now (if it hasn't moved again already). They often use the latest
exploits, since they are commercially motivated.

From: ~BD~ on
Ant wrote:

Lots of interesting technical things, which I know little about but
enjoy reading.

Thanks, Ant! :)


From: gufus on
Hello, The!

You wrote on Sun, 4 Apr 2010 14:19:59 -0700:

| GMT-08:00 is Pacific Time (US & Canada) NOT -7
Correct :)
With best regards, gufus. E-mail: stop.nospam.gbbsg(a)

From: David H. Lipman on
From: "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)>

| "gufus" <stop.nospam.gbbsg(a)> wrote:
>>Hello, David!

>>You wrote on Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:50:45 -0400:

>> |
>> | Whatever it is -- the fault lies in you PC.
>> |

>>He /doesn't/ get it :-(

| The problem with you folks is that you're working on theory, not real-world
| testing. You sit back and tell others that they're wrong when you have no
| idea what experience they have dealing with things. I worked for almost 8
| years as a software developer writing medical software for organ transplants
| and banking software before that. And I have spent the past 8 years fulltime
| doing tech support, specializing in malware issues. So, I think I have some
| field experience worth paying attention to that you folks who merely read
| Usenet posts simply don't have.

| I'm not angry at you and your smugness, though I suppose I could get angry.
| I'm saying that your theoretical posts simply don't shed any light on the
| issues, so they're not helpful.

Whatever the issue it appears to be fixed as it is 1732 hrs my time and your post appears
as 1719 hrs so it is a MOOT POINT now.

Multi-AV -

From: FromTheRafters on
"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message

> Avast is an anti-malware program, not simply an anti-virus program,
> according
> to their website. Here's what it says:


The thing is, antivirus is less simple than antimalware. That is why you
always see their name as Avast! *Antivirus* and not Avast!
*Antimalware*. When the program is able to detect viruses as well as
other malware, it will be called an antivirus (because it is the more
capable detector if it also detects viruses).

Your statement makes more sense as:

Avast is an anti-virus program, not simply an anti-malware program,
according to their website...

There is some confusion because you would think that the umbrella term
"malware" used in the antimalware would indicate comprehensive malware
detection. Antimalware should be called anti non-viral malware instead.