🚀 go-pugleaf

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/4/2010 2:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
>> news:G1j6o.53362$dx7.3611@newsfe21.iad...

>> [...]

>>>     "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term.
>>> Why do you think they call the software used to clean
>>> trojans and  worms, "Anti-Virus" software?

>> Generally, they call it antimalware unless it is also effective against
>> viruses and worms (which are self-replicators). If it is effective
>> against viruses, they call it an antivirus. Antivirus programs can also
>> detect some non-replicating malware.

|        They call it that because it's quite common to refer to
| all malware as viurses. Been this way for decades.



>>> I'm sure you don't think that they only clean viruses
>>> and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a matter
>>> of semantics.

>> Of course it is, but semantics shouldn't be a dismissive word. The
>> meanings of words are *important* to effective communications.


|       It's all a matter of who you're talking to. If the person
| wants to nitpick even though they know what a person means then
| what can you do but explain. I've worked for people who are very
| computer savvy and people who are new to computers. I use all
| the terms to describe the problem and rarely hear anyone nitpick
| about using the word "virus" to describe a trojan or worm. It's
| just acceptable.

>>> Just about all of the major anti-malware vendors have
>>> products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because it just
>>> stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this?

>> We all know this, and we don't like it one bit. The fact remains that
>> viruses are a special case requiring more than what many antimalware
>> applications are equipped to handle.


|          It seems to anger you on some level. I don't care in
| the least what they call it, as long as it does the job.

I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make it 
correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call yourself 
a "professional."


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/4/2010 1:53 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>



>>>> The term "malware" is generic.
>>>> The term "virus" is quite specific.



>> |       "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term. Why do
>> | you think they call the software used to clean trojans and
>> | worms, "Anti-Virus" software? I'm sure you don't think that they
>> | only clean viruses and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a
>> | matter of semantics. Just about all of the major anti-malware
>> | vendors have products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because
>> | it just stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this?

>> Sorry John - No.

|      Well it's time you learned.

I've been studying malware since I had to erradicate the "Jerusalem.B" from a Novell 2.11 
network.  That was a true file infecting virus.  I have been at this long enough to say 
emphatically, YOU need to learn otherwise do NOT call yourself a professional.


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/4/2010 2:48 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
>> news:J3j6o.48696$3%3.27633@newsfe23.iad...

>> [...]

>>>      I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do
>>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them
>>> called "Anti-Virus" software?

>> Yes, but that is beside the point.

|      No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is
| acceptable to just about everyone except a few anal retentive
| people who love to go around correcting everyone.

Its is ONLY accecpted by the "uneducated" person.  The ones who get infected!


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
[...]
> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make it
> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call yourself
> a "professional."
>
>


Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology 
in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then 
all bets are off.

It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage, 
"anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a 
professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of 
communication is "Adapt to your audience."

cheers,
wolf k.

From: "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca>

| On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
| [...]
>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make
>> it
>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call
>> yourself
>> a "professional."




| Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology
| in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then
| all bets are off.

| It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage,
| "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a
| professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of
| communication is "Adapt to your audience."

You can't call all malware a virus just beciuse you use anti virus software.  It doesn't 
work that way and is a miconception and misnomer.

If a majority of people have a misperception of a concept, their majority does not change 
the concept.


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On 05/08/2010 17:42, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Wolf K"<wekirch@sympatico.ca>
>
> | On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
> | [...]
>>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make
>>> it
>>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call
>>> yourself
>>> a "professional."
>
>
>
>
> | Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology
> | in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then
> | all bets are off.
>
> | It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage,
> | "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a
> | professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of
> | communication is "Adapt to your audience."
>
> You can't call all malware a virus just because you use anti virus software.  It doesn't
> work that way and is a misconception and misnomer.
>
> If a majority of people have a misperception of a concept, their majority does not change
> the concept.
>
>

Quite true, but I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about 
words. Words refer. What they refer to is governed by context.

One of the most difficult things for professionals to accept is that 
their professional context is, well, limited. Most people aren't 
professionals, but that doesn't stop them from borrowing professional 
terms. And of course when they borrow, they change the referents of the 
terms. You can scold all you like about misperceptions (and I do 
sympathise, believe me), but the fact is that the terms "anti-virus" and 
"virus" applied to computers have become generalised in common usage.

Fact is that it happens in all professions. Professionals develop 
special and precise terminology, their work impinges on the rest of us, 
and we borrow their terms. And immediately fudge, fuzz, and often 
thoroughly misunderstand the concepts. Most of the time, it makes no 
practical difference.

FWIW, my teeth grate when I hear people use "substitute" for "replace", 
or "reticent" for "hesitant", or - well, you get the idea. I hope. ;-)

Can I stop people form misusing these words. 'Course not.

wolf k.

From: "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca>



| Quite true, but I'm not talking about the concept, I'm talking about
| words. Words refer. What they refer to is governed by context.

| One of the most difficult things for professionals to accept is that
| their professional context is, well, limited. Most people aren't
| professionals, but that doesn't stop them from borrowing professional
| terms. And of course when they borrow, they change the referents of the
| terms. You can scold all you like about misperceptions (and I do
| sympathise, believe me), but the fact is that the terms "anti-virus" and
| "virus" applied to computers have become generalised in common usage.

| Fact is that it happens in all professions. Professionals develop
| special and precise terminology, their work impinges on the rest of us,
| and we borrow their terms. And immediately fudge, fuzz, and often
| thoroughly misunderstand the concepts. Most of the time, it makes no
| practical difference.

| FWIW, my teeth grate when I hear people use "substitute" for "replace",
| or "reticent" for "hesitant", or - well, you get the idea. I hope. ;-)

| Can I stop people form misusing these words. 'Course not.

True, however one must not lose the opportunity to educate.  If you don't, well you have 
given them reason to continue.

-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:oaF6o.1247$1v3.814@newsfe20.iad...
> On 8/4/2010 2:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
>> news:G1j6o.53362$dx7.3611@newsfe21.iad...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>     "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term.
>>> Why do you think they call the software used to clean
>>> trojans and  worms, "Anti-Virus" software?
>>
>> Generally, they call it antimalware unless it is also effective 
>> against
>> viruses and worms (which are self-replicators). If it is effective
>> against viruses, they call it an antivirus. Antivirus programs can 
>> also
>> detect some non-replicating malware.
>
>       They call it that because it's quite common to refer to all 
> malware as viurses. Been this way for decades.

Being wrong is quite common also.

>>> I'm sure you don't think that they only clean viruses
>>> and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a matter
>>> of semantics.
>>
>> Of course it is, but semantics shouldn't be a dismissive word. The
>> meanings of words are *important* to effective communications.
>>
>
>      It's all a matter of who you're talking to. If the person wants 
> to nitpick even though they know what a person means then what can you 
> do but explain.

I don't usually bother to correct non-professionals, although I do 
mention that they are in error when they call non-replicators viruses. 
In your case, being a "professional" you should know better. That you 
refuse to accept the facts is just your personality getting in the way 
of your professionalism.

> I've worked for people who are very computer savvy and people who are 
> new to computers. I use all the terms to describe the problem and 
> rarely hear anyone nitpick about using the word "virus" to describe a 
> trojan or worm. It's just acceptable.
>
>>> Just about all of the major anti-malware vendors have
>>> products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because it just
>>> stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this?
>>
>> We all know this, and we don't like it one bit. The fact remains that
>> viruses are a special case requiring more than what many antimalware
>> applications are equipped to handle.
>
>         It seems to anger you on some level.

Not really, it angers me when they call viruses malware - but that's 
another story that you would not be interested in.

> I don't care in the least what they call it, as long as it does the 
> job.

What job?

If you use an antimalware application to remove viruses, you can be 
giving a still infested machine back to your customer. I know that you 
don't care, and it is alright with me if you insist on continuing to be 
wrong, but calling yourself a professional is over the top.

I won't bother to help you to understand the importance of the 
difference anymore since you refuse to learn. 

On 8/3/2010 1:41 PM, Dustin wrote:
> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in
> news:i39p7p$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 8/2/2010 11:35 PM, Dustin wrote:
>>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>   wrote in
>>> news:i37va2$e0f$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On 8/2/2010 11:41 AM, Dustin wrote:
>>>>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>    wrote in
>>>>> news:3dp5o.33911$o27.791@newsfe08.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 3:04 PM, Dustin wrote:
>>>>>>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>     wrote in
>>>>>>> news:ILj5o.44119$4B7.2363@newsfe16.iad:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2010 8:24 AM, Dustin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>      wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:i32s10$653$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2010 4:21 PM, Dustin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>       wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:L0p4o.32466$OU6.4877@newsfe20.iad:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2010 1:40 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> | On 7/29/2010 3:24 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | On 7/27/2010 11:17 PM, RJK wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>              You should know there is malware out there
>>>>>>>>>>>>              that will
>>>>>>>>>>>> trash the registry and it's backup. It will require some
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of reinstall to get the system back working. I found
>>>>>>>>>>>> it very rare that I need to do a full reformat and
>>>>>>>>>>>> reinstall because of malware. Some malware will also
>>>>>>>>>>>> corrupt system files and when you remove them with
>>>>>>>>>>>> scanners, it will make the installation unbootable. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> is yet another reason professionals will make a backup if
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible before removing infections.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What software do you use for the backup?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>            I will either use Acronis' or Paragon's backup
>>>>>>>>>>            software
>>>>>>>>>> depending on the situation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you storing the backup on
>>>>>>>>>>> read only media or a hard drive that could fail for any
>>>>>>>>>>> reason?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>           You mean WORM(Write Once/Read Many) media don't
>>>>>>>>>>           you? That
>>>>>>>>>> media can fail also. No media is perfect. I store the backup
>>>>>>>>>> on business or enterprise grade HDs and will transfer to
>>>>>>>>>> other media if the customer wants that backup. If it's a
>>>>>>>>>> large backup they will have to pay me for it. Tell me what
>>>>>>>>>> software and hardware would you use to backup your
>>>>>>>>>> customer's HD before you start removing malware?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't heard the acronym WORM in years... Damn, you have
>>>>>>>>> been around a long time. :) I was thinking of cd-r or perhaps
>>>>>>>>> dvd-r material.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>            It would be OK for DVD-R if the backup is small. But
>>>>>>>> swapping 20 or more DVDs is a pain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It depends. When I was working at a computer shop; I'd either
>>>>>>>>> use norton ghost corp edition or the hardware drive cloning
>>>>>>>>> device we had at the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>            I rarely use Ghost these days, it used to be the
>>>>>>>>            only
>>>>>>>> thing I ever used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I really didn't see much point in cloning a malware drive
>>>>>>>>> for malware removal; I wasn't stupid enough to trash my
>>>>>>>>> backups of the registry or important files. besides, I wrote
>>>>>>>>> several utilities to assist me in verifying various windows
>>>>>>>>> dll/exe files were still intact and okay for reuse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           Yea that's good for you, but when you're working for
>>>>>>>> someone else and they have important data they want to save, I
>>>>>>>> will backup. Most of the time the customer doesn't have a
>>>>>>>> backup. A lot of times the customer has a HD that's five or
>>>>>>>> six years old and they really need a backup done. Then there
>>>>>>>> are the times when I'm working for a young person and they
>>>>>>>> don't want a backup they just want the drive wiped and they
>>>>>>>> want the OS installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theres your odd attitude again. What makes you think I wasn't
>>>>>>> working for someone else when I did those things? Obviously
>>>>>>> since I didn't own the shop, I was working for someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           Well you made it sound like you were doing it for
>>>>>>           yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Btw, What certifications do you presently hold? I'm just lowly
>>>>>>> A+/network+ (back when that stupid thing was still considered
>>>>>>> worth the paper it's printed on). Are you MCSE?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           I took courses and wound up teaching an A+ class. A+ is
>>>>>>           a
>>>>>> good place to start for someone looking to get certified for
>>>>>> work at some company that requires that cert. I view the MCSE
>>>>>> certification as pretty much a money making scam. I look at MCSE
>>>>>> certifications as a joke in many cases because some courses just
>>>>>
>>>>> My boss paid for the tests, it just cost me some driving time. As
>>>>> I've been doing the computer thing since the trash80 series was
>>>>> actually new and hot stuff to some, I didn't really need to study
>>>>> for the exam. While tandy's computers were proprietary in nature,
>>>>> they had some things in common with cp/m and later dos machines.
>>>>> Besides, it beat tracing a grounding problem on an AT mainboard
>>>>> keyboard port.<G>
>>>>>
>>>>> The shop I worked at actually fixed problems, we didn't ship to
>>>>> manufacturer or sell you a new mainboard if components could be
>>>>> replaced cheaper and still bring the system back to it's original
>>>>> self. None of us were afraid of soldering pencils or precision
>>>>> electronics, everyone at the shop had a background in it.
>>>>
>>>>         I got my start in electronics and have a background in
>>>> that too. I took college courses in electronics and am no
>>>> stranger to repairing circuit boards. I'm no stranger to
>>>> soldering irons. Well that's what we called them. I used to
>>>> repair TVs, radios and such years ago.
>>>
>>> Odd. I'm familiar with soldering irons as well as pencils,
>>
>>        Well most people I know call all of them "soldering irons"
>> no matter the size.
>

>
> Soldering gun by weller. Obviously, pictures alone show you why they
> are called the respective things.

    Oh I've heard the terms before, it's just that most people I 
know like electricians and electrical engineers call them 
soldering irons, even the small ones.

>
>>>>       When I need to repair a blown component like a bad sound
>>>> card, video card or controller card, I replace it. I haven't
>>>> needed to repair an actual circuit board for at least 15 years.
>>>
>>> So you haven't seen the leaking capacitor issue in your time
>>> professionally repairing PCs? If you have, did you upsell your
>>> client instead of replacing the caps? You can find them pretty
>>> cheap, in 50- 100 packs; enough to do several boards...
>>
>>       I've seen just about everything that can cause a MB or card
>> to fail. I swap it out. I don't whip out a soldering iron at a
>> client's house to fix a throw-away component like a mother board
>> or card these days. It's just not worth the effort to get the
>> actual schematics and replace a teeny tiny resistor that has no
>
> I was talking specifically about the bad leaking capacitors;

      I'm talking about the whole range of problems. I've seen 
many different kinds of problems.

> it takes
> less than 10 minutes to determine what the board needs as far as those
> go.

      Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB 
capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the 
newer systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.

> Considering mainboards back when this was still a new issue were
> atleast a bill for AT class, It was cheaper to replace the caps than
> sell the customer a new mainboard.

       I don't feel good about repairing an old motherboard that 
already has leaking capacitors. Chances are something else is 
going to go wrong with it. That's why I would rather get a new 
motherboard and reinstall drivers. But you MUST be talking about 
ancient times when you say it's cheaper to replace capacitors.

>Not all shops did that route tho,
> some would gladly take another bill or two from the customer to replace
> a faulty component the store sold the customer just a few months back.

      You see I go to people's houses and repair systems in my 
home shop. So I would not go to someone's house and start 
soldering. You may want to waste time and that's fine but I like 
to leave the customer with something that will be working for a 
while rather than leave them with a MB that's already going south.

>
> In some cases, an RMA was possible so the store wasn't out anything,
> but in other cases, the store and the customer both lose if you can't
> RMA the bad board.
>

     How long ago was this? What kinds of computers and 
motherboards were you repairing?

>> marking on it. You do of course know that not all components
>> exhibit actual visual signs of failure so you have to get a
>> meter to go in and test with a schematic on components. There is
>
> I know that many components don't display visual failure signs, but in
> fairness, I did cite a specific example; and a visual inspection would
> clearly tell you if a cap suffered from this or not.

       Yea but I started talking about components because it's 
not just capacitors that go bad. You have surface mount chips 
that go bad and they are a real pain in the ass to replace, if 
you can find the chip. This is the main reason I don't see many 
computer repair people actually get a soldering iron and go to 
work on a component. It's mainly needed when someone has really 
old stuff and it's very hard to find a replacement MB or card. 
This is very rare.

>
>> other test equipment for motherboards  Basically it would cost
>> the client lots of money and time. Today's components are best
>> replaced. Would you actually repair a $30 sound card?
>
> A sound card isn't a mainboard.

    It's a component in a computer and that's what I repair.

> It really depends. If I can fix the
> issue in a few minutes and not have to reinstall drivers or anything
> else that goes along with swapping parts out, sure I would. Unless I
> have an identical (right down to the revision and eeprom) card to go in
> it's place; otherwise I have to get drivers and deal with windows
> possibly being unhappy about the previous cards drivers, ad nausem.

     You have got to be kidding. Fixing a teeny tiny component 
on a sound card is easier than getting a new one and installing 
the drivers? Do you actually repair a lot of new sound cards 
these days? If so, what was the last sound card you repaired?

>
>>> You don't work with laptops much eh? They're bad about breaking the
>>> power connector on the mainboard. In those cases, what do you do?
>>
>>       I do some repairs on laptops like replace bad components. I
>> don't do component level repairs when I can save time and money
>> buying a replacement part. I let the good folk who make the
>> laptop components to the refurbishing work.
>
> Most of the time the component that needs replacing is a swap out, plug
> and play kinda deal; even the cpu is this way most of the time. What
> isn't that way is the little wire connectors on the laptops mainboard;
> that will require a soldering pencil, or passing it off to be done by
> someone else.

     That's me, I pass it off to the company that made it. I let 
them do the refurbishing work. I don't refurbish parts. I let 
the customer weigh costs and sometimes it just cheaper to let 
the vendor do repairs or buy a new laptop. Laptops are pretty 
cheap now. Lots of people go with a new one.

John

"Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:l6G6o.163309$iL.123754@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a 
>> "virus" does not make it
>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please 
>> do NOT call yourself
>> a "professional."
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use 
> terminology in their professional lives, words will escape into the 
> wild, and then all bets are off.

That's true, and it is worth mentioning to people when they misuse 
terminology. It is not really worthwhile to *insist* that the masses use 
terms correctly.

...but a professional should be professional.

> It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage, 
> "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a 
> professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of 
> communication is "Adapt to your audience."

I do, and the average Joe may or may not even cause me to just mention 
that there *is* a difference. A professional should be more receptive to 
gaining knowledge. 

"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:ElF6o.53526$dx7.52083@newsfe21.iad...
> On 8/4/2010 2:48 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
>> news:J3j6o.48696$3%3.27633@newsfe23.iad...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>      I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do
>>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them
>>> called "Anti-Virus" software?
>>
>> Yes, but that is beside the point.
>
>     No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to 
> just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go 
> around correcting everyone.

...and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I 
suppose.

Talk about anal. 

"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:0oF6o.53527$dx7.4854@newsfe21.iad...
> On 8/4/2010 4:29 PM, RJK wrote:
>> ...same old hair being split again an again :-)
>>
>> ...when someone dumps a system box in my lap, or pleads down the 
>> 'phone, he
>> or she often suspects that "...there's a virus in it."
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> regards, Richard
>>
>>
>
>
>       LOL. The same thing happens to me. Do you think every time a 
> customer does that I tell them, "It's not a virus! It's a trojan!"

It's not worth it. They don't care, and might not even be capable of 
understanding the difference.

> I'll tell them eventually what the malware was that caused the problem 
> but I'll never be condescending to them like some other 
> "professionals" out there.

That's a good idea, it doesn't pay to alienate customers. 

"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:Z1F6o.145$RZ1.109@newsfe24.iad...

>      Terminology is subject to any number of factors. It's perfectly 
> correct to use "virus" when talking about trojans and worms. It's also 
> perfectly correct to call all three "bugs". It just matters what the 
> prevailing thinking is.

It's not *right*, but whatcha gonna do - dinner table conversation is 
different than technical conversation.

> Also professionals who actually make software that remove malware 
> often called their products anti-virus software.

Only if they did indeed target viruses. If they couldn't detect at least 
most existing viruses, they would be laughed out of business.

Maybe you would be so kind as to back that claim up with an example? To 
the best of my knowledge, anti-malware programs that now incorporate an 
antivirus engine don't bother to change the name to reflect that change. 
Ad-Aware and The Cleaner have added the ability to detect viruses to 
their programs IIRC even MBAM has detection for some viruses. Every *AV* 
program I can think of not only *detect* and *identify* viruses, but 
also can *remove* them (using a VDL). Some years ago they started to try 
to cover non-replicating malware as well (might as well, they're already 
hooked into the system anyway).

It's wrongheaded in a way, there are better ways to avoid most 
non-replicators (the exception being software exploit based malware). It 
is the worms and viruses that get around otherwise best practices. 

"John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:hYI6o.7940$1F6.1462@newsfe01.iad...

[...]

>      Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB 
> capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the newer 
> systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.

Acid core capacitors?

...is this more dinner table conversation? 

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

| "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message
| news:hYI6o.7940$1F6.1462@newsfe01.iad...

| [...]

>>      Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB
>> capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the newer
>> systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.

| Acid core capacitors?

| ...is this more dinner table conversation?


G-d I missed this.

"...acid core and solid core capacitors..." it is as funny as the furniture polish on the 
feather to claen the dust out of the computer.

I guess it is easier to write acid then electrolytic.

-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On 8/5/2010 2:25 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>
> | On 8/4/2010 1:53 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>
>
>
>>>>> The term "malware" is generic.
>>>>> The term "virus" is quite specific.
>
>
>
>>> |       "Virus" is both a generic term and a specific term. Why do
>>> | you think they call the software used to clean trojans and
>>> | worms, "Anti-Virus" software? I'm sure you don't think that they
>>> | only clean viruses and leave trojans and worms alone. It's all a
>>> | matter of semantics. Just about all of the major anti-malware
>>> | vendors have products that they call Anti-Virus. This is because
>>> | it just stuck. You're a professional and you don't know this?
>
>>> Sorry John - No.
>
> |      Well it's time you learned.
>
> I've been studying malware since I had to erradicate the "Jerusalem.B" from a Novell 2.11
> network.  That was a true file infecting virus.  I have been at this long enough to say
> emphatically, YOU need to learn otherwise do NOT call yourself a professional.
>

          What makes me a professional is knowing what I'm 
doing. Remember this whole thing started out because someone 
wasn't "professional" enough to think of backing up so they 
won't lose data by clearing restore points.

John

On 8/5/2010 8:36 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "FromTheRafters"<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>
> | "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
> | news:hYI6o.7940$1F6.1462@newsfe01.iad...
>
> | [...]
>
>>>       Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB
>>> capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the newer
>>> systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.
>
> | Acid core capacitors?
>
> | ...is this more dinner table conversation?
>
>
> G-d I missed this.
>
> "...acid core and solid core capacitors..." it is as funny as the furniture polish on the
> feather to claen the dust out of the computer.
>
> I guess it is easier to write acid then electrolytic.
>

      Both are correct, you call yourself a professional and you 
don't know that many "wet" capacitors use acid electrolytes?

John

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/5/2010 8:36 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "FromTheRafters"<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

>> | "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote in message
>> | news:hYI6o.7940$1F6.1462@newsfe01.iad...

>> | [...]

>>>>       Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB
>>>> capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the newer
>>>> systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.

>> | Acid core capacitors?

>> | ...is this more dinner table conversation?


>> G-d I missed this.

>> "...acid core and solid core capacitors..." it is as funny as the furniture polish on
>> the
>> feather to claen the dust out of the computer.

>> I guess it is easier to write acid then electrolytic.


|       Both are correct, you call yourself a professional and you
| don't know that many "wet" capacitors use acid electrolytes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor



-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB3569.22879460
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>>      I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do
>>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them
>>> called "Anti-Virus" software?
>>
>> Yes, but that is beside the point.
>
>     No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to=20
> just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go=20
> around correcting everyone.

...and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I=20
suppose.

Talk about anal.=20


Now I've been trying to follow this thread, and I may have  got the =
wrong end of the stick somehere but, I would like to point out that I =
fully respect David H Lipmans' persistance in clarifying malware =
terminology / categrisation,
indeed, I've found it VERY useful on several occasions.

And for those other malware "professionals" out there, I'd like to point =
out that David H Lipman is held in the highest esteem by many people =
inc. myself, ...and who also consider him to be one of the foremost =
authorities in the field of malware, so much so that when I have an =
interest in a specific variant, and I'm wading through a thread, there's =
only a few I need to read - David H Lipman first - and a few others.  I =
particularly avoid reading posts by one or two  particular "know-all's" =
because of their condescending and ignorant attitude.

enough said :-)

regards, Richard
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB3569.22879460
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D"" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I =
know exactly=20
what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; you use =
to=20
remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; =
called=20
"Anti-Virus" software?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Yes, but that is beside =
the=20
point.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No that's the point =
entirely. The=20
word "virus" is acceptable to <BR>&gt; just about everyone except a few =
anal=20
retentive people who love to go <BR>&gt; around correcting=20
everyone.<BR><BR>...and ignorant people will still call themselves =
professionals=20
I <BR>suppose.<BR><BR>Talk about anal. <BR><BR><BR>Now I've been trying =
to=20
follow this thread, and I may have&nbsp; got the wrong end of the stick =
somehere=20
but, I would like to point out that I fully respect David H Lipmans' =
persistance=20
in clarifying malware terminology / categrisation,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>indeed, I've found it VERY useful =
on&nbsp;several=20
occasions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>And for those other malware "professionals" out =
there, I'd=20
like to point out that&nbsp;David H Lipman is held in the&nbsp;highest =
esteem by=20
many people inc. myself, ...and who&nbsp;also consider him to be one of =
the=20
foremost authorities in the field of malware, so much so that when I =
have an=20
interest in a specific&nbsp;variant, and I'm wading through a thread, =
there's=20
only a few I need to read - David H Lipman first -&nbsp;and a few =
others.&nbsp;=20
I particularly avoid reading posts by one or two &nbsp;particular =
"know-all's"=20
because of their condescending and ignorant attitude.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>enough said :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>regards, Richard</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CB3569.22879460--

RJK wrote:
>  >>>  I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do
>  >>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them
>  >>> called "Anti-Virus" software?
>  >>
>  >> Yes, but that is beside the point.
>  >
>  > No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to
>  > just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go
>  > around correcting everyone.
>
> ...and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I
> suppose.
>
> Talk about anal.
>
>
> Now I've been trying to follow this thread, and I may have got the wrong
> end of the stick somehere but, I would like to point out that I fully
> respect David H Lipmans' persistance in clarifying malware terminology /
> categrisation,
> indeed, I've found it VERY useful on several occasions.
> And for those other malware "professionals" out there, I'd like to point
> out that David H Lipman is held in the highest esteem by many people
> inc. myself, ...and who also consider him to be one of the foremost
> authorities in the field of malware, so much so that when I have an
> interest in a specific variant, and I'm wading through a thread, there's
> only a few I need to read - David H Lipman first - and a few others. I
> particularly avoid reading posts by one or two particular "know-all's"
> because of their condescending and ignorant attitude.
> enough said :-)
> regards, Richard

An interesting comment, Richard.

You say that you hold Mr Lipman "in the highest esteem". Tell me why! Do 
you know who he is and by whom he is employed?

AFAICT - he's just another unknown entity posting on Usenet. You 
obviously trust his word - but how can others *really* know the truth?

If he was a *real* professional, he'd check his spelling before he hit 
the send key! ;-)

Regards,

Dave

RJK wrote:
> "~BD~"<BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk>  wrote in message

> An interesting comment, Richard.
>
> You say that you hold Mr Lipman "in the highest esteem". Tell me why! Do
> you know who he is and by whom he is employed?
>
> AFAICT - he's just another unknown entity posting on Usenet. You
> obviously trust his word - but how can others *really* know the truth?
>
> If he was a *real* professional, he'd check his spelling before he hit
> the send key! ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> I won't be drawn into this one too much !  ...other than to say,
>
> "AFAICT - he's just another unknown entity posting on Usenet," so what !
> I've always been impressed by my sixth sense, (modesty completely aside for
> a few seconds), and its' rarely ever proved me wrong.
> Regarding your other peculiar observations / questions :-
> Your perpesctive on the "the truth" seems to be a unique, (and abnormally
> persistent and unperceptive), point of view !
> "spelling" ....well, ...we all "typo" now and again, it's usually blatantly
> obvious what the intended letter or word was from the context, (context
> means "surrounding text" - in case you don't know what "context" means), and
> to negatively comment on other peoples spelling, esp. when there is an
> obvious typo, is bit pathetic to say the least.
>
> regards, Richard
>
> ps ...please don't waste any more breath on the topic, if you have
> sufficient intellect, you'll agree that your points have been fully
> addressed.  Pusuence of my response would simply be indication that you
> simply cannot, or choose not, understand what you're reading !


Have you never noticed this signature block?

The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Please Do NOT follow any advice given by the Trolls listed
below. Trolls CAN NOT help you. They latch on to my posts like leeches.
David H Lipman, Peter Foldes, Barry Schwarz, PA Bear, Leythos.

-- 
Dave - Posted for the benefit of John Slade (who speaks much sense!)

On 8/6/2010 5:13 AM, RJK wrote:
>
>  >>> I know exactly what I'm talking about. So tell me what tools do
>  >>> you use to remove worms and trojans from computers? Are any of them
>  >>> called "Anti-Virus" software?
>  >>
>  >> Yes, but that is beside the point.
>  >
>  > No that's the point entirely. The word "virus" is acceptable to
>  > just about everyone except a few anal retentive people who love to go
>  > around correcting everyone.
>
> ...and ignorant people will still call themselves professionals I
> suppose.
>
> Talk about anal.
>
>
> Now I've been trying to follow this thread, and I may have got the wrong
> end of the stick somehere but, I would like to point out that I fully
> respect David H Lipmans' persistance in clarifying malware terminology /
> categrisation,
> indeed, I've found it VERY useful on several occasions.
> And for those other malware "professionals" out there, I'd like to point
> out that David H Lipman is held in the highest esteem by many people
> inc. myself, ...and who also consider him to be one of the foremost
> authorities in the field of malware, so much so that when I have an
> interest in a specific variant, and I'm wading through a thread, there's
> only a few I need to read - David H Lipman first - and a few others. I
> particularly avoid reading posts by one or two particular "know-all's"
> because of their condescending and ignorant attitude.
> enough said :-)
> regards, Richard

      That's all well and good but this conversation was not 
just about malware. It started out when Dave said he was 
reluctant to disable system restore because he wanted to keep 
the restore points. Well that problem would be solved by a 
simple backup. I think he got a bit angry because he overlooked 
something simple. So many times people who are programmers or 
people who don't regularly work in on site repairs tend to lose 
people skills and commons sense skills. I've been doing repairs 
for about 25 years and made a good living doing so. I never 
needed to advertise because I got more business by word of mouth 
than I could handle.

    Since this thread started people have tried to change the 
subject when they lose an argument. That's how we wound up on 
soldering irons and leaking capacitors.

John

On 8/5/2010 2:33 PM, Wolf K wrote:
> On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
> [...]
>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a
>> "virus" does not make it
>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please
>> do NOT call yourself
>> a "professional."
>>
>>
>
>
> Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology
> in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then
> all bets are off.
>
> It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage,
> "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a
> professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of
> communication is "Adapt to your audience."
>
> cheers,
> wolf k.


      I could not have said it better myself.

John

On 8/5/2010 2:42 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Wolf K"<wekirch@sympatico.ca>
>
> | On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
> | [...]
>>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not make
>>> it
>>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call
>>> yourself
>>> a "professional."
>
>
>
>
> | Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology
> | in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then
> | all bets are off.
>
> | It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage,
> | "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a
> | professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of
> | communication is "Adapt to your audience."
>
> You can't call all malware a virus just beciuse you use anti virus software.  It doesn't
> work that way and is a miconception and misnomer.
>
> If a majority of people have a misperception of a concept, their majority does not change
> the concept.
>
>

      Actually because a great number of people use a phrase for 
something other than it's initial meaning, a word's meaning can 
change. Much of the English language has been formed this way. 
Look at the word "cool" it means more than just the temperature. 
In fact some things that are really "hot" these days can also be 
"cool".

John

On 8/6/2010 3:11 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>
> | On 8/5/2010 8:36 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "FromTheRafters"<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>>> | "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>   wrote in message
>>> | news:hYI6o.7940$1F6.1462@newsfe01.iad...
>
>>> | [...]
>
>>>>>        Provided it's a bad capacitor. But these days a lot of MB
>>>>> capacitors are solid core and you have to test. Most of the newer
>>>>> systems I see have both acid core and solid core capacitors.
>
>>> | Acid core capacitors?
>
>>> | ...is this more dinner table conversation?
>
>
>>> G-d I missed this.
>
>>> "...acid core and solid core capacitors..." it is as funny as the furniture polish on
>>> the
>>> feather to claen the dust out of the computer.
>
>>> I guess it is easier to write acid then electrolytic.
>
>
> |       Both are correct, you call yourself a professional and you
> | don't know that many "wet" capacitors use acid electrolytes?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor
>
>
>

        And acid core capacitors are wet capacitors. Now let me 
ask you this. Would you repair a motherboard that has several 
bulging electrolytic capacitors rather than replace the 
motherboard? I'm still waiting for Dustin to tell me when was 
the last time he repaired a sound card and what it was.

John

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/5/2010 2:42 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "Wolf K"<wekirch@sympatico.ca>

>> | On 05/08/2010 17:23, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> | [...]
>>>> I'm sorry, just because the "average" person calls all malware a "virus" does not
>>>> make
>>>> it
>>>> correct and if you insist on following this train of thought, please do NOT call
>>>> yourself
>>>> a "professional."




>> | Yeah, well,context rules. No matter how carefully people use terminology
>> | in their professional lives, words will escape into the wild, and then
>> | all bets are off.

>> | It's context that determines a word's meaning. In every-day usage,
>> | "anti-virus" has come to mean what "anti-malware" means in a
>> | professional context. That's just the way it is. The first rule of
>> | communication is "Adapt to your audience."

>> You can't call all malware a virus just beciuse you use anti virus software.  It
>> doesn't
>> work that way and is a miconception and misnomer.

>> If a majority of people have a misperception of a concept, their majority does not
>> change
>> the concept.



|       Actually because a great number of people use a phrase for
| something other than it's initial meaning, a word's meaning can
| change. Much of the English language has been formed this way.
| Look at the word "cool" it means more than just the temperature.
| In fact some things that are really "hot" these days can also be
| "cool".

Jargon and coloquial speech is not proper English and is only for very informal 
converstations.  Never on technical discussions.



-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>



|         And acid core capacitors are wet capacitors. Now let me
| ask you this. Would you repair a motherboard that has several
| bulging electrolytic capacitors rather than replace the
| motherboard? I'm still waiting for Dustin to tell me when was
| the last time he repaired a sound card and what it was.

I would consider such a circuit board to have compromised integrity and not being worthy 
of repair, only replacement.


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On 06/08/2010 16:51, David H. Lipman wrote:
[...]
> Jargon and colloquial speech is not proper English and is only for very informal
> conversations.  Never on technical discussions.

For every context there is a proper register (that's a technical term). 
You violate it at your peril. But be careful: just because you're among 
truckers doesn't mean you can talk like one. That is, truckers among 
themselves is one context, truckers with you present is another.

"Good communicators" are skilled at adapting their speech and writing to 
the context.

cheers,
wolf k.

On 8/6/2010 1:56 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>
>
>
>
> |         And acid core capacitors are wet capacitors. Now let me
> | ask you this. Would you repair a motherboard that has several
> | bulging electrolytic capacitors rather than replace the
> | motherboard? I'm still waiting for Dustin to tell me when was
> | the last time he repaired a sound card and what it was.
>
> I would consider such a circuit board to have compromised integrity and not being worthy
> of repair, only replacement.
>
>


         Now tell Dustin Cook that please. He doesn't seem to 
get that point.

John

From: "Wolf K" <wekirch@sympatico.ca>

| On 06/08/2010 16:51, David H. Lipman wrote:
| [...]
>> Jargon and colloquial speech is not proper English and is only for very informal
>> conversations.  Never on technical discussions.

| For every context there is a proper register (that's a technical term).
| You violate it at your peril. But be careful: just because you're among
| truckers doesn't mean you can talk like one. That is, truckers among
| themselves is one context, truckers with you present is another.

| "Good communicators" are skilled at adapting their speech and writing to
| the context.

I'll drink to that !


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

From: "John Slade" <hhitman86@pacbell.net>

| On 8/6/2010 1:56 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "John Slade"<hhitman86@pacbell.net>



>> |         And acid core capacitors are wet capacitors. Now let me
>> | ask you this. Would you repair a motherboard that has several
>> | bulging electrolytic capacitors rather than replace the
>> | motherboard? I'm still waiting for Dustin to tell me when was
>> | the last time he repaired a sound card and what it was.

>> I would consider such a circuit board to have compromised integrity and not being
>> worthy
>> of repair, only replacement.




|          Now tell Dustin Cook that please. He doesn't seem to
| get that point.

Dustin is still young and is still learning.  Albeit he has come a long ways  :-)

Cheers Dustin.

-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:02:24 -0400, in <i3q4mq0hgl@news4.newsguy.com>,
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>
>>>You weren't specific John so it needed qualification.
>
>| I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>| but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>| and I thank you for the clarification.
>
>Thank you for all the networking information you have provided over the years.
>
>BTW:  Your Thwate email cert. expired in January.

Yep.  Thwate shut down that service.

-- 
John            FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
                FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:51:53 -0400, in <i3q4340h85@news4.newsguy.com>,
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>
>>| On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:26:47 -0400, in 
>><i3ptfm01lcf@news6.newsguy.com>,
>>| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>
>>>>| What I do with this class of virus:
>>>>| 1. Turn off System Restore and delete all restore points.
>>>>| 2. Note the names and locations of infected files.
>>>>| 3. Boot from something like Ultimate Boot CD
>>>>|    <http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/>, and delete the infections.
>>>>| Turn System Restore back on when disinfected.
>>
>>>>John, the fisrt time I have seen you post here  :-)
>>
>>>>Actually, not a good idea as if you are dealing with a file 
>>>>infecting virus then you
>>>>will
>>>>have *numerous* legiimate files being deleted and thus a corrupted 
>>>>OS that is no longer
>>>>bootable.
>>
>>>>Either you use an anti virus and "clean" the infected files or, wipe 
>>>>and
>>>>reinstall/re-image.
>>
>>| I was specifically referring to virus files that are _not_ part of
>>| necessary executables.  When necessary parts of the OS are infected,
>>| then I restore them from backup, which I think it preferable to 
>>trying
>>| to disinfect them, all too often an imperfect process.
>>
>>You weren't specific John so it needed qualification.
>
> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
> and I thank you for the clarification.

Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the 
infection of possibly needed executables?

...and yes, if you have a good backup you're golden - much more 
preferable to replace than to disinfect. 

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
<i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...

>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>
>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the 
>infection of possibly needed executables?

I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
more clear.

-- 
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>
>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>>
>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>
> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
> more clear.

That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can be 
deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, but 
Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program 
files (although not with a replicant). 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
<i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>>>
>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>>
>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
>> more clear.
>
>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can be 
>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, but 
>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program 
>files (although not with a replicant). 

That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or is
not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this report:
<http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the contrary?

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>

| On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
| <i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
| <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...

>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.

>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?

>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
>>> more clear.

>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can be
>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, but
>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
>>files (although not with a replicant).

| That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or is
| not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this report:
| <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
| Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
| with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
| files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the contrary?

That ThreatExpert report is insuficient.

Go back and read Ant's analysis based upon the Ramnit samples I provided him with.


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:14:36 -0400, in <i3sh5907nh@news6.newsguy.com>,
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>
>| On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
>| <i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>| <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>>>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>
>>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>
>>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
>>>> more clear.
>
>>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can be
>>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, but
>>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
>>>files (although not with a replicant).
>
>| That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or is
>| not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this report:
>| <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
>| Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
>| with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
>| files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the contrary?
>
>That ThreatExpert report is insuficient.
>
>Go back and read Ant's analysis based upon the Ramnit samples I provided him with.

In which of the 184 messages in this thread would those specifics be?

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

From: "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>

>>That ThreatExpert report is insuficient.

>>Go back and read Ant's analysis based upon the Ramnit samples I provided him with.

| In which of the 184 messages in this thread would those specifics be?

Message-ID: <Z6mdnSdGNvB-rc_RnZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

Message-ID: <R_udnfUgK5IE2snRnZ2dnUVZ8jMAAAAA@brightview.co.uk>


-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:3dp2669is92a9f58ai7nih728pi8164jpf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
> <i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>>>>
>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>>>
>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
>>> more clear.
>>
>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can 
>>be
>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, 
>>but
>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
>>files (although not with a replicant).
>
> That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or 
> is
> not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this 
> report:
> <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
> Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
> with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
> files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the 
> contrary?

No, but I think I understand what you are saying now. 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:44:55 -0400, in
<i3srqb$fkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
>news:3dp2669is92a9f58ai7nih728pi8164jpf@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
>> <i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>>>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>>>>
>>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
>>>> more clear.
>>>
>>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can 
>>>be
>>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged, 
>>>but
>>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
>>>files (although not with a replicant).
>>
>> That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or 
>> is
>> not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this 
>> report:
>> <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
>> Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
>> with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
>> files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the 
>> contrary?
>
>No, but I think I understand what you are saying now. 

I understood what I was saying in the first post, thank you very much.

-- 
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:j7t3665drnnvo6j1epdv7an546mbcs7d8u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:44:55 -0400, in
> <i3srqb$fkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:3dp2669is92a9f58ai7nih728pi8164jpf@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
>>> <i3re5e$jkc$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
>>>>> <i3q747$ago$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>>>>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
>>>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
>>>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
>>>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
>>>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not 
>>>>> being
>>>>> more clear.
>>>>
>>>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files 
>>>>can
>>>>be
>>>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged,
>>>>but
>>>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
>>>>files (although not with a replicant).
>>>
>>> That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or
>>> is
>>> not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this
>>> report:
>>> <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c2589975069de044>
>>> Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own 
>>> experience
>>> with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only 
>>> non-essential
>>> files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the
>>> contrary?
>>
>>No, but I think I understand what you are saying now.
>
> I understood what I was saying in the first post, thank you very much.

Oh, that's rich. The old "I knew what I meant".

Unfortunately, some users might consider some non-essential files as 
needed files and they don't always have backups of them. Your stated 
method does nothing to retain or recover them. 

On Aug 2, 10:37 pm, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:


> And your opinion of wargames?
>

Here is the other half of the double bill-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/


TBerk

On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:44:55 -0400, in
> <i3srqb$fk...@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
>
>
>
> <erra...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dp2669is92a9f58ai7nih728pi8164jpf@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:45:46 -0400, in
> >> <i3re5e$jk...@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
> >> <erra...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> >>>"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:utd1665r4ab04coghfdir9rsn06cc3f5m8@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:39:32 -0400, in
> >>>> <i3q747$ag...@news.eternal-september.org>, "FromTheRafters"
> >>>> <erra...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:8a5166l8harrijvc3lh42u24s9h0b8r01h@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>> I thought "this class of virus" would be specific enough,
> >>>>>> but you're right that I should have been clearer,
> >>>>>> and I thank you for the clarification.
>
> >>>>>Just curious, what did you mean by 'this class of virus' and the
> >>>>>infection of possibly needed executables?
>
> >>>> I meant the class of virus that implants its own executable files,
> >>>> and protects them from most methods of removal.  Sorry for not being
> >>>> more clear.
>
> >>>That's okay. You are correct that self-contained replicator files can
> >>>be
> >>>deleted outright - there is nothing there that needs to be salvaged,
> >>>but
> >>>Ramnit.a actually modifies (infects/trojanizes) preexisting program
> >>>files (although not with a replicant).
>
> >> That depends on the actual problem, what the anti-virus system is or
> >> is
> >> not able to remove and disinfect on its own.  According to this
> >> report:
> >> <http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?md5=074a688443faea25c25899750...>
> >> Win32/RAMNIT.A modifies few essential executables.  My own experience
> >> with Microsoft Security Essentials (cf OP) is that only non-essential
> >> files are missed in this case.  Do you have experience to the
> >> contrary?
>
> >No, but I think I understand what you are saying now.
>
> I understood what I was saying in the first post, thank you very much.
>
> --

uh, John?  That would be 'thankyouvurrymuch...'.

TBerk
I'm just say'n

TBerk <bayareaberk@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3eb3bbc9-99aa-402b-b5ee-
c98c4ae0bd66@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 2, 10:37�pm, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> And your opinion of wargames?
>>
> 
> Here is the other half of the double bill-
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/

Yea, I didn't care much for that one. 


-- 
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike 
your Christ."  - author unknown.

For Gods sake !!!.
This thread is supposed to be Re: Win32/RAMNIT.A 
which I have a nasty dose of & want info / advice.
I'm having a Hell of a trouble finding that in 
all this O/T chat.

If you want to have this very interesting & informative discussion Re: 
Computer Servicing start up an OT thread on that.
@@@@ Mouse (irritable one) @@@  

From: "Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam>

| For Gods sake !!!.
| This thread is supposed to be Re: Win32/RAMNIT.A
| which I have a nasty dose of & want info / advice.
| I'm having a Hell of a trouble finding that in
| all this O/T chat.

| If you want to have this very interesting & informative discussion Re:
| Computer Servicing start up an OT thread on that.
| @@@@ Mouse (irritable one) @@@

Advice:

Use a surrogate PC to scan the hard disk of the infected computer using a good anti virus 
application such that it will remove the virus from infected files.

-- 
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

"Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> wrote in message 
news:i540le$ev5$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> For Gods sake !!!.
> This thread is supposed to be Re: Win32/RAMNIT.A which I have a nasty dose 
> of & want info / advice.
> I'm having a Hell of a trouble finding that in all this O/T chat.

That happens a lot, it is often best to just create a new post describing 
your problem in detail and your computing environment where relevant.

That is not to say that it isn't advisable for a poster to read the group 
before posting, just that a discussion for one persons ramnit.a problem 
might not be exactly what is needed for another person's ramnit.a problem. 
This file infecting worm can be a bugger.

> If you want to have this very interesting & informative discussion Re: 
> Computer Servicing start up an OT thread on that.

Going against the grain by being reasonable and expecting it of others won't 
get you far here.

Thanks for protocol advice :) 
This group is no where as Bitchy Bad & deranged as alt.windows7.general.
Looks as tho I need to make myself liked here as this Rmnet thing looks 
like it will take a lot of work.
@@@mouse @@@
  

On 8/25/2010 2:06 PM, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> For Gods sake !!!.
> This thread is supposed to be Re: Win32/RAMNIT.A which I have a nasty
> dose of & want info / advice.

The short answer is one that you probably don't want to hear, but by now 
you've likely already came to the same conclusion. There is no way to 
remove it. You will have to reformat and reinstall.

After the re-install, be very careful about plugging in USB keys that 
may still be infected.