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: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?" 
    Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:23:01 -0700

    Oops! I missed that. The Lavasoft website does not exactly emphasize the
    free version. Can't imagine why. :-)

    Thanks!

    "Margaret Wilson" wrote:

    > Adaware's SE version is free also. You just have to remove your old
    > version, install the new one, and update its definitions.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Margaret
    >
    > "B. Chernick" <BChernick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:4E6A3E57-92CD-47F5-852E-D40EAFD4FBFA@microsoft.com...
    > > 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: David H. Lipman: "Re: I'm probably safe but can someone explain what I've just seen?"