Re: A new 'Beta' test from Panda

'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

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eXSXPTI0HHA.3940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 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
| ******************************************************
| "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:EBrqi.11448$tj6.10470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > 'BoaterDave' wrote, in part:
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which can be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting' malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > _____
| >
| > In the USA be George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, or *** Cheney, bribe
the
| > ISP, or actually get a court order B^)
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:e8TIJCI0HHA.1188@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Phew! Thanks for all that, Phil! I really appreciate the time and
| > trouble
| > | you have taken to respond so comprehensively.
| > |
| > | Dare I ask you for further comment? <g> I will anyway!
| > |
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which can be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting' malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > |
| > | I'd value your advice. TIA.
| > |
| > | David
| > |
| > |
| >
******************************************************************************************************
| > | "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:Wwqqi.12398$Od7.11531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > '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
| > headers
| > | > for my posts to this newsgroup, you would usually see a different IP
| > | > address
| > | > on posts from different days. Each IP address would be picked more
or
| > | > less
| > | > at random from the block assigned to the ISP. With a large IP like
| > mine,
| > | > that would be from a address space of millions. If you look at my
| > posts
| > | > with time stamps more than a few days apart the IP address is
| > different.
| > | > The IP address associated with your post is from the block assigned
to
| > AOL
| > | > (172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255), an IP address space of just over
| > | > 1,500,000.
| > | > My current IP address is as I make this post is 208.187.80.135. If
I
| > | > disconnect my DSL modem, and post again, the IP address in that
second
| > | > post
| > | > will be different. So newsgroup identities are exactly as you
| > thought.
| > | >
| > | > There is no way to identify a newsgroup poster from the IP address
in
| > the
| > | > post headers, even if the headers are completely legitimate without
| > the
| > | > cooperation of the ISP because you need the records the ISP keeps to
| > match
| > | > an IP address with the customer AT THE TIME THE POST WAS MADE. Even
| > if
| > | > the
| > | > customers IP address is static, though you might assume the identity
| > of
| > | > the
| > | > poster, you'd still need the account records. This should take a
| > court
| > | > order or a 'national security letter' these days.
| > | >
| > | > Some naive trolls who use different sock puppet posting names are
| > exposed
| > | > when [they post from a small ISP (because the pool of ISP addresses
is
| > | > small) or when they post from a static IP address] AND the style is
| > | > suspiciously similar. But that is just exposure of sock puppets,
NOT
| > | > actually matching a real identity to a post.
| > | >
| > | > As for your original question, which I think is about Panda nanoscan
| > (ALL
| > | > the information for a newsgroup post should be in the BODY of the
| > | > message -
| > | > the 'Subject' line should be a short phrase to indicate the content
of
| > the
| > | > message). My thoughts on Panda nanoscan: there is no compelling
| > reason
| > | > to
| > | > try it. On the down side it is 'Beta' (may have bugs, is not ready
| > for
| > | > release, is at present for Panda's benefit, not the user's benefit),
| > it
| > | > can't be very thorough in 20 seconds, requires installing active-x
| > | > controls,
| > | > really gives no assurance that the scanned system is clean, and
| > requires
| > | > an
| > | > active connection to the internet. On the up side, it is very
quick.
| > | >
| > | > Phil Weldon
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:uj8F0CF0HHA.5644@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In-line responses
| > | > |
| > | > | "Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:OCx$NTE0HHA.1184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Sorry Dave . But I cannot comment on your request since I am not
| > | > familiar
| > | > at
| > | > | all with the Panda software. Maybe someone will come along soon
that
| > can
| > | > | comment on your question.
| > | > |
| > | > | **Thanks for your straight-forward reply, Peter. I'll wait
| > patiently!
| > :)
| > | > |
| > | > | As far as IP addresses go you do know that they can be spoofed and
| > some
| > | > | people do it .
| > | > | You have been in a similar situation yourself when you had your ID
| > | > stolen
| > | > in
| > | > | the past so you know what kind of situation it can create
| > | > |
| > | > | **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.
| > | > |
| > | > | BD
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| >
______________________________________________________________________________________
| > | > |
| > | > | "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:%23%23FF5pA0HHA.484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > Hello Peter! Thank you for the reminder.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > It would, though, have been even more helpful had you also given
| > your
| > | > view
| > | > | > on the new facility from Panda as I'd requested.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Whilst I'm here I noted that your IP address is currently
| > | > 64.228.81.234
| > | > | > Having checked your other posts on this group since 31 May, each
| > IP
| > | > | > address
| > | > | > is different (save for on 5 July when 3 replies were made on the
| > same
| > | > | > day).
| > | > | > The previous training given by you - to me - suggested that an
IP
| > | > address
| > | > | > may be used to identify a particular poster. Others posting here
| > *do*
| > | > | > maintain the same IP address. Will you, please, explain why
yours
| > | > changes?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > An additional query. On a separate newsgroup, on a private
server,
| > the
| > | > IP
| > | > | > address of a poster is shown as 127.0.0.1, viz:-
| > | > | >
| > | > | > X-Trace: dogagent.com 1185373384 26976 127.0.0.1 (25 Jul 2007
| > 14:23:04
| > | > | > GMT)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I'd be grateful if you, or anyone else knowledgeable on such
| > matters,
| > | > | > would
| > | > | > comment on this. Thank you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > David
| > | > | >
| > | > | > ***************************************
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:%23e7LSG$zHHA.5152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > multiposted not crossposted. Even worse
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Peter
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
| > | > | > Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
| > acknowledged.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:uRDXih8zHHA.4004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >> Forgive the cross-post but, on reflection, I felt this might be
a
| > | > more
| > | > | >> appropriate place to ask this question!
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> Hi - just wondering is any of the gurus here have tried it and
| > might
| > | > wish
| > | > | >> to
| > | > | >> comment: See: http://www.nanoscan.com/
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> David
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|


.