|
Posted by Phil Weldon on July 27, 2007, 4:47 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
'BoaterDave' wrote:
| So it seems that they are lying - or I have malware (again!) on my PC!
| Now I've got to determine which it is!
_____
No, not lying - 'Beta' is a warning label that the software may not work as
intended. You should not depend on 'Beta' software for critical operations
(and keeping your system free of malware is a critical operation.) And even
antimalware in production can give false alerts. If you are going to use an
on-line scan, pick one that is NOT 'beta' and that is more thorough than
'Nanoscan'. Symantec and other antimalware publishers have more thorough
on-line scans
As a comparison, the Symantec on-line virus scanner will scan every file on
a system and take 20 minutes or more (fast system with > 100,000 files)
while 'Nanoscan' checks, on the same system in 20 seconds, well, who knows?
( I would imagine 'Nanoscan' checks memory, the registry, and whatever else
it can in 20 seconds. Something like 'Nanoscan' might eventually be an
quick supplement to other malware detectors, but only a minor supplement.
What antimalware protection do you use, and is it up-to-date (an in either
the very latest definitions or definitions updated within the last two
days)?
Phil Weldon
Phil Weldon
| So it seems that they are lying - or I have malware (again!) on my PC!
| Now I've got to determine which it is!
|
| Thanks for your coments, Phil.
|
| BD
| ******************************************************
| > 'BoaterDave' wrote, in part:
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which can be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting' malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > _____
| >
| > In the USA be George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, or Dick Cheney, bribe
the
| > ISP, or actually get a court order B^)
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > | Phew! Thanks for all that, Phil! I really appreciate the time and
| > trouble
| > | you have taken to respond so comprehensively.
| > |
| > | Dare I ask you for further comment? <g> I will anyway!
| > |
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which can be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting' malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > |
| > | I'd value your advice. TIA.
| > |
| > | David
| > |
| > |
| >
******************************************************************************************************
| > | > 'BoaterDave' wrote, in part:
| > | > | **Indeed - your memory serves you well (this time!) However, that
| > does
| > | > *not*
| > | > | explain why posts from you here invariably have different IP
| > addresses
| > | > when
| > | > | the day changes. You cannot, surely, be suggesting that when folk
| > visit
| > | > | /this/ group and see the name of Peter Foldes that it isn't really
| > you?
| > | > | People tend to see a name they trust and follow the advice given -
| > how
| > | > easy
| > | > | it would be to mislead vulnerable folk in such a scenario. So I
ask
| > you
| > | > once
| > | > | again, politely., the reason for the constant change in your IP
| > address.
| > | > _____
| > | >
| > | > In the main, for DSL, an IP address is assigned dynamically to a
| > customer.
| > | > Each time a system (or for some setups the modem) connects to the
ISP,
| > the
| > | > ISP assigns a new IP address from the block allocated to the ISP. A
| > | > static
| > | > IP address costs extra. If, for example, you were to examine the
| & |
