Avast Doesn't Block XP Defender malware (ave.exe)
in [Spyware]
|
From: ~BD~ on 3 Apr 2010 19:34 gufus wrote: > Hello, David! > > You wrote on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:28:50 GMT: > > | For the record "the lastest version" means exactly that, 5.0.462. I'm > | wondering what part of "latest version" people don't understand. > > What version? > Avast! TRT said "he also only posted the program version number not virus definition version which is 100403-1" Maybe David Kaye has not used the very latest virus *update*. I don't know, but something is odd if TRT's Avast! does catch the rogue file yet David's doesn't! -- Dave
From: David H. Lipman on 3 Apr 2010 19:40 From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> | gufus wrote: >> Hello, David! >> You wrote on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:28:50 GMT: >> | For the record "the lastest version" means exactly that, 5.0.462. I'm >> | wondering what part of "latest version" people don't understand. >> What version? | Avast! | TRT said "he also only posted the program version number not virus | definition version which is 100403-1" | Maybe David Kaye has not used the very latest virus *update*. I don't | know, but something is odd if TRT's Avast! does catch the rogue file yet | David's doesn't! How the f**k do you know Butts' copy of Avast is going up against the SAME file David Kaye has ? Because of the name AVE.EXE ? The ONLY way to properly compare if the two workstations using Avast are attacking the SAME file is to discuss the MD5 checksum of the file. IFF Butts and Kaye have the SAME MD5 then it is the same file. There are all too many instances of a specifically named file having numerous variations being detected and undetected. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Leythos on 3 Apr 2010 19:46 In article <XKCdnZrLa7_eJirWnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk says... > The Real Truth MVP wrote: > > Did you notice how everyone keeps avoiding your question about the > > quality of my software. It's been asked many times and not by you but > > never answered. > > > > > Oh yes, I notice! :) > > Perhaps others posting here don't have the skills required to produce > helpful, working, 'fix it' programmes. Jealous maybe? Who knows. > It's avoided because what can one say about PIRATED CODE. Butts didn't write it, but he has hacked it and the signatures that the authors included to prove it are in butts files that he distributes, so, if he didn't manipulate the files he takes from others, if he didn't do anything to them, how could anyone say they are bad? What you seem to be missing is that HE MODIFIES THE WORKS OF OTHERS, IN UNKNOWN WAYS, SINCE HE DOESN'T PROGRAM AND DOESN'T CODE, AND HE THEN CLAIMS OWNERSHIP. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: gufus on 3 Apr 2010 19:56 Hello, ~BD~! You wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 00:34:13 +0100: | know, but something is odd if TRT's Avast! does catch the rogue file yet | David's doesn't! Yes -- With best regards, gufus. E-mail: stop.nospam.gbbsg(a)shaw.ca
From: FromTheRafters on 3 Apr 2010 20:03
"~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:kamdnSv9kbHoTSrWnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Maybe David Kaye has not used the very latest virus *update*. I don't > know, but something is odd if TRT's Avast! does catch the rogue file > yet David's doesn't! It is possible for a trojan to drop a file named ave.exe that is for all practical purposes unique to that system. The filename means nothing. The thing that should be detected is the dropper itself - if you don't install it, you don't have to identify and remove it. |