Re: Alerting - Malicious software removal tool

In article <uDCBfNKUJHA.5408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
kaymanDeleteThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:38:55 -0500, Leythos wrote:

In article <9AAC7AE5-48B8-4E88-9163-59674962BF01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
steve.riley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Leythos, which "security people" claim the tool is useless?

Your claim is certainly unsubstantiated by the data. We released the tool in
early 2005. As of June 2008, the tool has executed almost three billion
times and has performed over 62 million disinfections on almost 24 million
distinct computers.

This information, plus much more research, is available from our
twice-yearly Security Intelligence Report. You can download the latest
edition from http://www.microsoft.com/sir. You can see a list of the malware
families the MSRT recognizes at
http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/families.mspx; we update

How many people, other than MS people, do you see suggesting that it's
the proper tool to use when removing malware?

Not necessary to promote as most of the users with genuine os download an
update and run it every month.

And how does that help people during the month?

How does that help people that want to manually scan their computers
with they don't even know it's there to be used?

What does it tell you that on a compromised computer that the tool has
found significantly LESS if any malware in relation to most other free
tools?


How many people, other than MS people, do you see suggesting that
compromised computers should be cleaned with it?

Lack of knowledge?
And most users with compromised computers do not cite specifics when
seeking help for malware removal, furthermore most malware come in
different names.

Actually, during discussions with compromised users you tend to pull a
LOT of information out of them. The MS Product is almost never mentioned
by anyone except MS people.

How many machines were not cleaned by the MS provided tool?

Irrelevant guess work. Fact is that MRT cleaned 24 million machines thus
far.

That it has cleaned SOMETHING on 24 million machines is irrelevant, the
question of relevance is WHAT has it cleaned and was the computer system
left 100% clean.

How many machines were detected as compromised that were NOT cleaned
completely?

You don't have to take my word for any of it, all you have to do is a
LITTLE research to see that noone in the community puts any serious
faith in using the tool.

And which community would that be?
Maybe they should have a look here:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121161&source=rss_topic125
http://blogs.technet.com/mmpc/archive/2008/11/19/msrt-review-on-win32-fakesecsen-rogues.aspx

Just look around - computerworld is not an unbiased source, neither is
technet.

I have NO connection to any vendors products or tools, I have no
investment in any vendors products or tools - I make this statement to
affirm that my opinion is not biased by greed.

Gee, dismount of that high (ethical) horse you see yourself sitting on.
You sound like a born again Christian? <shudder>

It's relevant because many people make claims to support their own
tools/products or vendors they invest with.

My personal experience with over 3700 machines this year, is that it's
not effective when compared to other tools.

You probably didn't know using it.
Your numbers look a bit 'thin'

Do you have personal experience in the same area as my 3700+ machines?
How many people reading in this group manage that many machines?

Whereas:
"...62 million disinfections on almost 24 million distinct computers."
look a tad more impressive.

Not really, if the tool didn't completely clean the systems then the
stat is just hype.

I could create an app that cleans a common infection off system while
not cleaning the entire system and it would not be considered a quality
product.

MS has the intimate knowledge of their OS and Applications and should be
able to clean EVERYTHING off a system that compromises it - their tools
should be able to secure the platform completely, or at least enough
that we don't have to worry about malware, but they don't do it.

I think the MSRT is a noble effort and was a good thing,
but actually securing the OS would have been more worthy and a better
allocation of money.

All you have to do is a LITTLE research in relation to the specific purpose
of MRT.

Already done, before my first post, and you've done nothing to show that
I was wrong in my statement.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx (remove 999 for proper email address)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SP 3 for XP
    ... Your plan ignores the fact much spam and malware are spread using compromised computers. ... If you are not concerned if your computer gets malware, it is more likely soon compromised possibly before you have any clue there is a problem. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Zlob.Trojan
    ... unusal events occuring on their computers, folk end up with even worse ... malware on their machines? ...
    (microsoft.public.security.virus)
  • Re: upgrading frm XP Home to Pro
    ... Windows XP Home - unless ... The machines in question would access the central file repository ... Windows XP Home computers using very quickly (unless you record a lot of ... connects to the Internet, but I bet there is some sort of Cable/DSL Router ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: can we break the wordwrap limit in kmail?
    ... on dumb serial terminals on UNIX machines?" ... I can tell you why your life is actually interfered by my existance: ... HTML is a rendering language and its rendering depends on the ... computers from becoming the remote tools for people who _do_ wish to ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: USB-2, NTFS, Audio, Reliability
    ... rather suspicious of USB-2 and NTFS (windows) file systems. ... Spread over three computers, dozens of drives (SATA for use ... tweaked XP machines ("tweaked" ... tell you this is why I use only ECC memory in my machines. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)