I received a warning from Google ...... - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Someone wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not so. It just means that messages exchanged between it and your
computer are encrypted. This makes the mutual messaging "safe" in the
sense that an outsider who intercepts the messages will be unable to
read them without some effort (usually more than the likely payoff is
worth.)

But the website itself may still be or contain evil.

cheers,
wolf k.

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Wolf K wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thank you 'Wolf K' - your comment appreciated.

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



"~BD~" wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Never mind 3rd parties, I wouldn't trust the site itself with details
like that.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.



Re: I received a warning from Google ......




[...]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, but not very simple really. The problem is that you could *not*
determine that it had *not* been compromised. Most malware is going to
want to "do stuff" with the computing power it is stealing from you, if
it does that stuff - you know the machine has been compromised.

IOW, if it spews out malicious packets when you sufficiently emulate a
networking environment for it (or use a "test network"), that's a pretty
good indicator. However, If it doesn't do any obvious stuff, it doesn't
mean anything at all.





Re: I received a warning from Google ......



FromTheRafters wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hmmmmm! :)  Thanks for that. 'Ant' said quite simply, "no"!

I said - on another group:-

 > I wonder how many realise that installing an anti-virus programme
 > > *after* a machine has already been compromised might well give
 > > comfort to the user ...... but provide absolutely NO protection from
 > > malware!

Dustin Cook said in reply:-

"*That's not true, BD*. In fact, if the malware is known to the
antivirus app, there's a very good chance it can be removed without harm
to the system."

**

I'd also said:-

 > > In other words, today's 'nasties' can (and do) protect themselves
 > > when subjected to what they consider an attack! Bad news!

Dustin Cook responded:-

"They don't do anything "new" today that they couldn't do back in the
80s and 90s. "rootkit" on windows is another word for stealth, it just
sounds better in newsprint."

**

/I/ think *Dustin* is wrong. I believe that installing an anti-virus
programme on an already compromised machine is, in all probability, a
futile exercise.

I'd be interested to learn the views of others on this particular matter.

--
Dave



Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Quoted text here. Click to load it

He answered the question I think that you *meant* to ask.

"Is there a simple way to show a system is *not* compromised once you
have physical access to the machine aside from using antimalware
antivirus tools?" - and since absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence the answer is indeed no - even with AM/AV.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True, it could be installed and be kept from accessing certain areas by
a rootkit.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True, and the reason is that most of those apps will attempt to remove
known installed malware before it actually installs itself on the
machine. Many of them check for rootkits before allowing installation to
proceed. So, what Dustin said was true, but your eyes might have glazed
over when he wrote the word "known".

The Virus Description Language used to create the definitions to detect
and identify a malware item also includes clues as to how to go about
removing the identified malware.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True again, some actual viruses have in the past used some of the same
tricks that are essential to rootkit technology. The term "rootkit" is
just a renaming of these stealth methods that are used similarly to the
unix style tool replacement kits. That is to say that in addition to
stealing your computer power, they steal more in order to take measures
to hide that fact from the user (or admin, or even the system itself).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They used to say that you shouldn't install an AV on a compromised
machine.

Dustin didn't actually say otherwise, but he *did* say that known
malware would probably be removed without a problem when an attempt is
made to install the AV. My guess is that he considers the scan to be
part of the install process, and I believe it is these days.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you asking if flatten and rebuild is actually the *only* way to be
absolutely sure? Keep in mind that most people are content to be
'reasonably sure' after scanning their system and installing their AV
program. If reasonably sure isn't good enough for someone, I recommend a
robust back-up/restore method so that 'flatten and rebuild' does not
seem so daunting as it *does* provide better confidence.

Another thing, it would be important to know what you mean by
"compromised". Some malware is pretty lame, would it constitute a
compromise to you if it sent spam but had no command and control network
activity? Hell, sometimes all you need to do is hit the delete button to
send a malware to the bit bucket.



Re: I received a warning from Google ......



BD

You are Trolling. You already went through with this exact same exercise last
year
on the MS newsgroups and you know the answer.

WTF are you playing these pitiful  games for. You are a Troll that is hungry for
more food. In other words , you are a fool and an idiot who likes to play games.
Get
a life already


--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: I received a warning from Google ......




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello ASCII.

I didn't check the headers BD set for the thread he's recently hijacked
to hell. My bad.

 



--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ."  - author unknown.

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Dustin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hijacked?

WTF?

I *started* this thread, Dustin! :)

(Btw, I appreciate the responses you have given elsewhere)

Dave

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Don't feed the Trolls especially this Troll

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Peter Foldes wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What is your problem, Peter Foldes?

Are you paying for 'the bandwidth' or is it another reason?

*Everyone* is entitled to post on Usenet groups!  ;-)



Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Quoted text here. Click to load it

I've gotten warnings from sites before.....don't bypass them unless
you know they are safe.

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



Ron wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's good advice, Ron!

Thanks for posting.

Re: I received a warning from Google ......



On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:04:18 +0100, ~BD~

Quoted text here. Click to load it


A Minibus load of drunk heavies armed with baseball bats dispatched to
their HQ. That should do the job.

.
--------------------------
The Internet will become the
Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters,Idiots
And Trolls

(Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503 - July 2, 1566).
--------------------------

Site Timeline