Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?
From: B. Chernick (BChernick_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 08/29/05
- Next message: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Previous message: tiago: "New Malware.j"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Next in thread: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Reply: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:19:03 -0700
Ok, I downloaded and ran McAffee last night. Absolutely nothing. I'll do a
Safe mode scan tonight.
As for AdAware, I suppose I haven't been using it that often and was unaware
of it's status. Since I am on a limited budget, I passed up the SE version
for Microsoft's antispyware beta. That scan came up with nothing as well.
Looks like eTrust works pretty well.
Thanks.
"David H. Lipman" wrote:
> From: "B. Chernick" <BChernick@discussions.microsoft.com>
>
> | You say: "Therefore if if eTrust missed this OCX file there is the
> | possibility you did get a non-viral malware infection. I strongly suggested
> | replaceing Ad-aware6 with Ad-aware SE and updating it with the latest
> | signatures then perform a scan with the new version."
> |
> | Are you saying that you tested eTrust and it failed, or that you just don't
> | have confidence in eTrust? I should point out that I keep my antivirus
> | subscription up to date.
>
> No I never indicated "I tested eTrust." nor a lack of confidence in it !
>
> What I eluded to is that since what was found to be attepted to be installed was non-viral
> malware, in the class of adware, eTrust may not have detected it. The McAfee software I use
> was specifically set to "find potentially unwanted programs". Therefore it is more
> sensitive to non-viral malware. I have no idea what settings are enabled on your eTrust nor
> if it even catches adware.
>
> Since when I accessed this site it tried to install two malware types, it is my prognosis
> that if eTrust did not flag them then there is a chance that your visit to the site may have
> infected your PC with non-viral malware in the class of adware.
>
> As to keeping eTrust signatures up-to-date... You certainly didn't keep Ad-aware up to date
> now did you ? And if eTrust is not enabled to catch non-viral malware or if it isn't
> capable of catching non-viral malware then it didn't make a difference if it was up-to-date
> or not.
>
> Ceratainly since Ad-aware was outdated it was almost useless.
>
> /* Now go do what I suggested and PLEASE scan your system wuith Ad-aware SE and the Multi
> AV tool ! */
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>
>
- Next message: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Previous message: tiago: "New Malware.j"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Next in thread: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Reply: Margaret Wilson: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Reply: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
