Banned IP Address, Maybe Trojanss and Worms!
in [Viruses]
|
From: David Kaye on 20 May 2010 07:09 "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >If you use Wireless and it is NOT secured and you are the victim of WarDriving, > you really >are not that innocent as you are responsible for any/all activity on your > subscribed IP. I'm not convinced of that line of reasoning at all. If it were the case, companies such as McDonald's and Starbucks wouldn't have open wi-fi hotspots as part of their regular business plan.
From: David Kaye on 20 May 2010 07:19 Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >It's really not designed to run in safe mode; You should be using it in >normal mode windows; so that windows loads all the drivers and provides all >of the registry keys which are not necessarily online while in safe mode. I have followed the Malwarebytes forums for quite some time and have never seen anything from anyone at Malwarebytes telling people not to use it in safe mode. I welcome anybody who works for MBAM to write me and tell me that what I'm doing in ineffective or violates any intended purpose of the software. What makes you think that MBAM will scan differently in safe mode than in normal mode? The files that make up the registry haven't changed. The drivers haven't changed. Meanwhile, I have found that MBAM works much better and faster in safe mode when particularly nasty malware has taken over a machine simply because Windows is not loading the extra drivers, etc., nor is bogged down by excessive CPU use.
From: FromTheRafters on 20 May 2010 16:22 "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ht35rl$gpp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>It's really not designed to run in safe mode; You should be using it >>in >>normal mode windows; so that windows loads all the drivers and >>provides all >>of the registry keys which are not necessarily online while in safe >>mode. > > I have followed the Malwarebytes forums for quite some time and have > never > seen anything from anyone at Malwarebytes telling people not to use it > in safe > mode. I welcome anybody who works for MBAM to write me and tell me > that what > I'm doing in ineffective or violates any intended purpose of the > software. It's not so much that it shouldn't be run in safe mode as it is that it does a better job in regular mode. > What makes you think that MBAM will scan differently in safe mode than > in > normal mode? The files that make up the registry haven't changed. > The > drivers haven't changed. Some of the detection algorithms might involve having active malware to look at. Safe mode might not have loaded some aspects of the malware, so there would be no activity to observe. I *have* seen recommendations to run it in safe mode and *then* in normal mode. [...] ....and no, I'm not employed by Malwarebytes and am looking forward to you getting your response from a representative. Please share with us whatever information they allow you to.
From: David Kaye on 20 May 2010 16:43 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >Some of the detection algorithms might involve having active malware to >look at. Safe mode might not have loaded some aspects of the malware, so >there would be no activity to observe. I *have* seen recommendations to >run it in safe mode and *then* in normal mode. My impression is that MBAM does not look at activity but at pieces of code. I have a CD with a bunch of hacking tools on it which I use in my business. If I happen to have the CD in a machine when I'm doing a MBAM scan, it'll see those tools as malware, even though they're not active. >....and no, I'm not employed by Malwarebytes and am looking forward to >you getting your response from a representative. Please share with us >whatever information they allow you to. Will do.
From: David H. Lipman on 20 May 2010 17:28
From: "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >>If you use Wireless and it is NOT secured and you are the victim of WarDriving, >> you really >>are not that innocent as you are responsible for any/all activity on your >> subscribed IP. | I'm not convinced of that line of reasoning at all. If it were the case, | companies such as McDonald's and Starbucks wouldn't have open wi-fi hotspots | as part of their regular business plan. Please take time to read the law and the associated ISP AUP/ToS. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |