Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #241480 > unrolled thread

[OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-08-31 13:14 +0000
    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-04 19:19 -0400
      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-09-04 23:59 +0000
        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "John Corliss (ES)" <q34wsk20@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 01:53 -0700
          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-14 08:50 -0400
            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 22:51 +0000
              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-15 09:24 -0400
                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 14:50 +0000
                  Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-15 18:50 -0400
                    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 01:40 +0000
                      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-16 10:51 -0400
                        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-16 16:06 +0100
                          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-17 16:16 -0400
                            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:00 +0100
                            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-17 22:53 +0100
                        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
                          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-17 18:07 -0400
                            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-18 07:06 +0100
                              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-18 20:55 +0000
                                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-18 22:45 +0100
                                  Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-20 04:14 +0000
                                    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-20 10:53 +0100
                                      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-20 14:51 +0000
                                        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-20 16:01 +0100
                                          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-20 16:15 +0000
                                            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-09-20 21:57 +0100
                                              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry none <none@none.invalid> - 2015-09-20 16:00 -0700
                                                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-21 00:11 -0300
                                              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-21 00:42 +0000
                                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-22 08:33 -0400
                            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-18 20:55 +0000
                              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-22 08:51 -0400
        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-14 07:43 -0400
        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-14 22:51 +0000
    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 19:56 +0800
      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-15 08:13 -0400
        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-15 14:50 +0000
          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-15 17:22 -0400
            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 01:40 +0000
              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-16 07:23 -0400
                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 23:54 +0800
          Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-15 17:51 -0400
            Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:09 +0800
              Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-16 12:24 -0300
                Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:59 +0800
                  Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-16 17:56 +0000
                    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:11 +0800
                      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-18 13:23 -0300
                      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2015-09-18 20:55 +0000
                        Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-09-22 17:01 -0400
                  Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-16 15:19 -0300
                    Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:09 +0800
                      Re: [OT] - Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-09-18 13:11 -0300

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#243220

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mti0ic$v92$1@dont-email.me Fri,
18 Sep 2015 21:45:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> BD served in the Royal Navy for over 20 years. That's the REAL
> Truth! :-) 
> 

Yea? As what exactly? List the positions you served. As I recall you 
mentioning being unable to safely fly on more than one occasion. 



-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243233

On 20/09/2015 05:14, Diesel wrote:
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mti0ic$v92$1@dont-email.me Fri,
> 18 Sep 2015 21:45:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> BD served in the Royal Navy for over 20 years. That's the REAL
>> Truth! :-)
>>
>
> Yea? As what exactly? List the positions you served. As I recall you
> mentioning being unable to safely fly on more than one occasion.

OK - here goes, Dustin!

I joined the Royal Navy as an Artificer Apprentice (Control Engineering) 
in January 1962. When I was an Acting Petty Officer, in January 1967, I 
was promoted and attended the Britannia Royal Naval College in 
Dartmouth, Devon, for officer training.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/where-we-are/training-establishments/brnc-dartmouth

Thereafter, in 1968 I flew Jet Provost aircraft at RAF Linton-on-Ouse 
near York until I gained my 'wings'. It was then to the RNAS Brawdy in 
Pembrokeshire, Wales where, during much of 1969 I flew first of all the 
twin-seat, and then single seat, Hawker Hunter. The stumbling block for 
me occurred when I was then sent to the (then) naval air station at 
Lossiemouth in northern Scotland to fly the Blackburn Buccaneer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer

Flying training is not easy and there a high attrition rate. Only three 
of the 24 cadets I started training with at Dartmouth became front line 
pilots.

I was offered and accepted re-training as an Air Traffic Control 
Officer. In early 1970 I qualified and served at RNAS Yeovilton in 
Somerset where we operated F4 Phantoms. From there it was on to HMS Ark 
Royal for a two year tour 1972-1974.

My next appointment was to RNAS Culdrose, the busiest helicopter station 
in Europe.

 From there, in 1977, it was off with my family to the Australian naval 
air station at Nowra, NSW, for another two year tour. Whilst serving 
there I spent two months in the Aussie aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne - 
they took me to Hawaii where I spent a fantastic two week period!

We returned to England in 1979 and I chose to go back to RNAS Culdrose 
where we owned a small house (albeit with a mortgage!). In the early 
1980's there was a Defense Review and volunteers for early release were 
requested - personnel willing to accept redundancy/early retirement - 
and I put up my hand.

My application was accepted and I left service in May 1983 with the rank 
of Lieutenant Commander.

There. I hope this helps. :-)

D.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243251

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtlvib$402$1@dont-email.me Sun,
20 Sep 2015 09:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> My application was accepted and I left service in May 1983 with
> the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

You're a total disgrace to the uniform. You neglected to mention where 
you flunked out, too. What were the terms of that exactly?


-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243256

On 20/09/2015 15:51, Diesel wrote:
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtlvib$402$1@dont-email.me Sun,
> 20 Sep 2015 09:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> My application was accepted and I left service in May 1983 with
>> the rank of Lieutenant Commander.
>
> You're a total disgrace to the uniform.

And YOU are a very rude and disrespectful young man.

> You neglected to mention where you flunked out, too.

Your comprehension of English appears pathetic. What did you THINK I 
meant by "The stumbling block for me occurred when I was then sent to 
the (then) naval air station at Lossiemouth in northern Scotland to fly 
the Blackburn Buccaneer."

> What were the terms of that exactly?

Please rephrase that. To what "terms" are you referring?

I simply switched from training to be a pilot to becoming an Air Traffic 
Controller. How hard is that for you to understand?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243259

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtmhl0$890$1@dont-email.me Sun,
20 Sep 2015 15:01:41 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> On 20/09/2015 15:51, Diesel wrote:
>> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtlvib$402$1@dont-email.me
>> Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>>
>>> My application was accepted and I left service in May 1983 with
>>> the rank of Lieutenant Commander.
>>
>> You're a total disgrace to the uniform.
> 
> And YOU are a very rude and disrespectful young man.

I can be. Respect is earned...otherwise, what's the point. You've done 
nothing to earn my respect. Only my contempt.
 
> I simply switched from training to be a pilot to becoming an Air
> Traffic Controller. How hard is that for you to understand?

It tends to leave things out that might otherwise paint you in a 
negative light. What you've written is PR spin. Dishonest.


-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243267

On 20/09/2015 17:15, Diesel wrote:
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtmhl0$890$1@dont-email.me Sun,
> 20 Sep 2015 15:01:41 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> On 20/09/2015 15:51, Diesel wrote:
>>> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtlvib$402$1@dont-email.me
>>> Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>>>
>>>> My application was accepted and I left service in May 1983 with
>>>> the rank of Lieutenant Commander.
>>>
>>> You're a total disgrace to the uniform.
>>
>> And YOU are a very rude and disrespectful young man.
>
> I can be. Respect is earned...otherwise, what's the point. You've done
> nothing to earn my respect. Only my contempt.

You are a fool, Dustin. But I've kept you alive! ;-)

Remember this offer, which you refused?

From: boaterdavetj@aol.com
To: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com
CC: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk
Sent: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:33
Subject: A real apology after all!

Hi Dustin

Seems this address does still function (and I've not been banned by AOL 
- what more proof could anyone wish for?!!)

I can't remember all the things you told me some years ago, but I was 
left with the feeling that you had had a difficult upbringing and had 
lost your dad at an early age. Maybe I remember incorrectly, but I think 
you once also mentioned that you had once (more?) considered taking your 
own life. I cringed when I read Graham say something about you jumping 
off a cliff - he couldn't possibly known how poignant that must have been.

The nasty posts being dragged up from the past must haunt you now and 
whoever is responsible for doing that should be shot.

I have never tried to hide anything from any one. I do not live in fear 
either and certainly don't respond to threats. Everything I have told 
you on-line about me is the truth - but I confess that I do twist and 
spin to try to draw out snippets of info. That is how I have built up my 
suspicions over the years. Peter Foldes lies, as you have seen for 
yourself. His buddies Robear Dyer and Jim Eshelman http://www.aumha.org/ 
  have also lied - I appreciate that only *I* know that for certain! 
You've proved your skill beyond all doubt. Please do it again now. Prove 
to yourself that you can not pin down 'Peter Foldes'. You don't even 
need to tell me the result. If he's a good guy - great. If he's not - 
you will find out.

You will remember a post about 'Don't mess with the old folk'. I'd 
quickly explored YouTube and grabbed the clip involving a car from a 
number of possible contenders. I had completely forgotten that your dad 
had been killed in a car accident - it was only when you commented so 
viciously that the horror of what I'd posted hit me - but by then, of 
course, it was too late. I apologise most sincerely for being so 
hurtful. It had been meant as a bit of fun, but it went badly wrong. I'm 
truly sorry, Dustin, and hope you will forgive me.

With regard to that Google Street View fiasco .......

I had no intention whatsoever of causing you or your family any harm. 
Until Aardvark tried to explain to me face to face, I had no 
comprehension that I was in some way placing you in danger. Previously, 
quite a long time before, I'd posted a GSV of Dave Eagle's house and 
absolutely no one suggested that I should not have done so. I even took 
pictures from different angles so that we could see the tall radio mast 
he uses a  'Ham' and we chatted about the local youth that used the 
'waste' ground behind his property for car races etc.

So, even though you haven't asked for it, I DO apologise,  as what I did 
was obviously a cause of anxiety for you. I am sorry, Dustin.

Everybody needs somebody!   I'll be happy to be your friend, Dustin

David B.


>> I simply switched from training to be a pilot to becoming an Air
>> Traffic Controller. How hard is that for you to understand?
>
> It tends to leave things out that might otherwise paint you in a
> negative light. What you've written is PR spin. Dishonest.

Total rubbish!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243271

~BD~ pretended :

> Remember this offer, which you refused?
>
> From: boaterdavetj@aol.com
> To: bughunter.dustin@gmail.com
> CC: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk
> Sent: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:33
> Subject: A real apology after all!
>
> Hi Dustin
>
> Seems this address does still function (and I've not been banned by AOL - 
> what more proof could anyone wish for?!!)
>
> I can't remember all the things you told me some years ago, but I was left 
> with the feeling that you had had a difficult upbringing and had lost your 
> dad at an early age. Maybe I remember incorrectly, but I think you once also 
> mentioned that you had once (more?) considered taking your own life. I 
> cringed when I read Graham say something about you jumping off a cliff - he 
> couldn't possibly known how poignant that must have been.
>
> The nasty posts being dragged up from the past must haunt you now and whoever 
> is responsible for doing that should be shot.
>
> I have never tried to hide anything from any one. I do not live in fear 
> either and certainly don't respond to threats. Everything I have told you 
> on-line about me is the truth - but I confess that I do twist and spin to try 
> to draw out snippets of info. That is how I have built up my suspicions over 
> the years. Peter Foldes lies, as you have seen for yourself. His buddies 
> Robear Dyer and Jim Eshelman http://www.aumha.org/   have also lied - I 
> appreciate that only *I* know that for certain! You've proved your skill 
> beyond all doubt. Please do it again now. Prove to yourself that you can not 
> pin down 'Peter Foldes'. You don't even need to tell me the result. If he's a 
> good guy - great. If he's not - you will find out.
>
> You will remember a post about 'Don't mess with the old folk'. I'd quickly 
> explored YouTube and grabbed the clip involving a car from a number of 
> possible contenders. I had completely forgotten that your dad had been killed 
> in a car accident - it was only when you commented so viciously that the 
> horror of what I'd posted hit me - but by then, of course, it was too late. I 
> apologise most sincerely for being so hurtful. It had been meant as a bit of 
> fun, but it went badly wrong. I'm truly sorry, Dustin, and hope you will 
> forgive me.
>
> With regard to that Google Street View fiasco .......
>
> I had no intention whatsoever of causing you or your family any harm. Until 
> Aardvark tried to explain to me face to face, I had no comprehension that I 
> was in some way placing you in danger. Previously, quite a long time before, 
> I'd posted a GSV of Dave Eagle's house and absolutely no one suggested that I 
> should not have done so. I even took pictures from different angles so that 
> we could see the tall radio mast he uses a  'Ham' and we chatted about the 
> local youth that used the 'waste' ground behind his property for car races 
> etc.
>
> So, even though you haven't asked for it, I DO apologise,  as what I did was 
> obviously a cause of anxiety for you. I am sorry, Dustin.
>
> Everybody needs somebody!   I'll be happy to be your friend, Dustin
>
> David B.
>

Oh Clarice, can't we be friends?  Please.......

When is someone going to sew this guys testicles into his mouth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243277

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:00:59 -0700, none <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>~BD~ pretended :

>> Everybody needs somebody!   I'll be happy to be your friend, Dustin

>Oh Clarice, can't we be friends?  Please.......
>
>When is someone going to sew this guys testicles into his mouth?

	Too late for that. He had them removed while he was in the
army. They were ruled a genetic biohazard to all future generations.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243276

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtn6g7$1sg$1@dont-email.me Sun,
20 Sep 2015 20:57:32 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> You are a fool, Dustin. But I've kept you alive! ;-)

In some respects, certainly. I was foolish to have responded to your 
initial email. Instead of going with my gut instinct and ignoring you. 
You haven't done anything beneficial towards me...

>> It tends to leave things out that might otherwise paint you in a
>> negative light. What you've written is PR spin. Dishonest.
> 
> Total rubbish!

No, it isn't. You neglected to mention the story you've told numerous 
times about being determined to be a danger to yourself, equipment and 
other personel. To claim you  'switched to training' or some such is 
rubbish, though. It's PR spin. Granted, you did switch, but it wasn't 
really your decision. rofl. Hence, PR spin. Hence, dishonest. 




-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243387

Diesel <me@privacy.net> writes:

> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> news:mtg9ig$c3m$1@dont-email.me Fri,
> 18 Sep 2015 06:06:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 
>
>> On 17/09/2015 23:07, Bud Frede wrote:
>>> You also have to consider that he was acting as a protector of
>>> computer users, one of the "good guys." You were a black hat and
>>> thus an enemy. 
>>>
>>> In some ways you're lucky. Zvi is an honorable guy and mainly
>>> battled you with words. Kaspersky is evidently ex-KGB and if you
>>> had crossed him or some of his pals you might have found them to
>>> be willing to take it farther than just words.:)
>> 
>> That fellow sounds a bit like BD!  ;-)
>
> No, he doesn't. Kaspersky actually has real military service, he didn't 
> flunk out. He wasn't deemed a danger to himself, his equipment, or 
> personnel. He's not a conspiracy driven idiot, like you, either.

I will say that Eugen was always nice to me when I exchanged e-mail with
him (I met him once at a conference in NYC too, but it was no more than
"Hello, nice to meet you). However, I got the impression from other
people that he was someone you didn't want to cross.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243172

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
news:BZidnTvOscktpGbInZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@supernews.com Thu, 17 Sep 2015
22:07:40 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

>> Lucky Dog. Zvi wouldn't workout either a trade or cash for a
>> license with me. He refused to give me any further advantage and
>> asked why I just didn't proceed to finish his program off by
>> cracking it too. ROFL.
> 
> I didn't approach him as an adversary. :) 

That wasn't my initial goal. Infact, I tried to reach him via email 
concerning some issues about his software. When he ignored me, is 
when I asked about it on usenet. :)
 
> He's an Israeli, and it's very possible that his parents or
> grandparents fled persecution in Europe and went to Israel. (I
> know I talked to him about this, but I don't remember what he told
> me.) So you take someone who was in military intelligence, lives
> in a country surrounded by people who have pledged to destroy
> Israel, and it's possible that his family knew first hand what
> it's like to have someone out to get you. I'd say that his
> response to you wasn't surprising at all. He saw you as a threat
> and I doubt he'll change his mind without a ton of evidence that
> you've reformed. Maybe not even then... 

Ah well. I'm not really all that interested with trying to change his 
or anyone elses mind. It's been nearly sixteen years now. If that's 
not good enough, fuck them and whatever boat/camel they rode in on.
 
> You also have to consider that he was acting as a protector of
> computer users, one of the "good guys." You were a black hat and
> thus an enemy. 

He was using marketing FUD to make claims about his program that 
weren't true WHILE attacking AV/VX alike in the process. He's no 
saint. He considered his technology superior to that of everyone 
elses. Arrogant about it, infact.
 
> In some ways you're lucky. Zvi is an honorable guy and mainly
> battled you with words. Kaspersky is evidently ex-KGB and if you
> had crossed him or some of his pals you might have found them to
> be willing to take it farther than just words. :) 

Nah. Nothing to do with luck. Purely misinformed persons is what it's 
about. [g] If Eugene wanted to talk to me, he could have called me on 
the phone. He had contact details. He was entrusted with them. :)

We didn't have to get along here all the time to still be civil 
towards one another outside of this place. Some VX besides myself 
were also known on name basis to some AVs. Likewise, Vx knew some of 
them personally too.

> I got out of there as soon as I could. 

I don't blame you.


-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243395

Diesel <me@privacy.net> writes:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
> news:BZidnTvOscktpGbInZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@supernews.com Thu, 17 Sep 2015
> 22:07:40 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 
>
>>> Lucky Dog. Zvi wouldn't workout either a trade or cash for a
>>> license with me. He refused to give me any further advantage and
>>> asked why I just didn't proceed to finish his program off by
>>> cracking it too. ROFL.
>> 
>> I didn't approach him as an adversary. :) 
>
> That wasn't my initial goal. Infact, I tried to reach him via email 
> concerning some issues about his software. When he ignored me, is 
> when I asked about it on usenet. :)

In that case, I guess he was just being a jerk. :)

>  
>> You also have to consider that he was acting as a protector of
>> computer users, one of the "good guys." You were a black hat and
>> thus an enemy. 
>
> He was using marketing FUD to make claims about his program that 
> weren't true WHILE attacking AV/VX alike in the process. He's no 
> saint. He considered his technology superior to that of everyone 
> elses. Arrogant about it, infact.

Sorry, I should have made it more clear that his wearing a white hat was
in his own mind. :) I was just speculating why he would have behaved as
he did. I could be way off base though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242656

Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:19:28 -0400, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>>Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is eliminating traditional AV protection from it's
>>> corporate network.
>>>
>>> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry
>>>
>>
>>Gee, this SentinelOne has re-invented generic AV protection. I wonder
>>how long it will be before Symantec buys them and they quietly get
>>buried in the backyard with all of the other companies that Symantec has
>>bought and silenced.
>>
>>Either that or they'll simply be shouted down by all the advertising and
>>salespeople that companies like McAfee, Symantec, and Kaspersky Labs can
>>afford because they have all that money rolling in from selling
>>subscription updates. Microsoft has been so jealous of this kind of
>>continuing revenue that they're doing everything they can to turn all of
>>their products into subscription-based ones too.
>>
>
> The difference between SentinelOne and tradition AV protection being; SO monitors all of the processes on a
> device, detecting malware based upon behavior.  Traditional AV detects malware based, primarily, upon file
> signatures.

You missed my reference to generic AV protection. Generic is
behavior-based and does not rely on signatures. It's a technique that
has been around since the '80s. As I said, there have been any number of
companies that developed products using generic protection and they were
all purchased by the big names in the AV industry and made to disappear.

>
> Technically, there is no reason an organization couldn't use both technologies simultaneously.  Yes, it is an
> anti-malware product but it approaches the problem differently than
> most other solutions.

It's typically not a good idea to use two different AV or anti-malware
packages at the same time. This is unfortunate, because most of the
packages or suites out there are better in some areas than others, so it
would be best to use, for instance, both an AV and an antispyware
package, but this can cause conflicts and almost always further decreases
performance.

It's rather sad, because MS had an opportunity to change all of this
when they first brought in Cutler and the other people on his team from
DEC. They weren't willing to do this though, most likely because it
would have broken backwards compatibility. (Apple _was_ willing to make
large changes not once, but multiple times, and the result is that they
are now sitting on a far more modern and maintainable code base, with
far fewer security issues and fewer limitations in general.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242733

Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid>
news:ubbkua1lil87ng52g40bm2q7vuk40nmpeq@4ax.com Fri, 04 Sep 2015
23:59:45 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:19:28 -0400, Bud Frede
> <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: 
> 
>>Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is
>>> eliminating traditional AV protection from it's corporate
>>> network. 
>>>
>>> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry
>>>
>>
>>Gee, this SentinelOne has re-invented generic AV protection. I
>>wonder how long it will be before Symantec buys them and they
>>quietly get buried in the backyard with all of the other companies
>>that Symantec has bought and silenced.
>>
>>Either that or they'll simply be shouted down by all the
>>advertising and salespeople that companies like McAfee, Symantec,
>>and Kaspersky Labs can afford because they have all that money
>>rolling in from selling subscription updates. Microsoft has been
>>so jealous of this kind of continuing revenue that they're doing
>>everything they can to turn all of their products into
>>subscription-based ones too. 
>>
> 
> The difference between SentinelOne and tradition AV protection
> being; SO monitors all of the processes on a device, detecting
> malware based upon behavior.  Traditional AV detects malware
> based, primarily, upon file signatures.

In the 80s and 90s, early 00s, signature detection was the primary 
method of malware detection, yes. However, most decent AV products do 
have behavior monitoring and onboard disassembly capability. SO isn't 
doing what hasn't been done countless times now before. It has it's 
own advantages as well as disadvantages. 
 
One disadvantage to this technology is that you really can't do much 
to determine if a file is setting up something for a nasty or doing 
something low level that you're okay with. So, it's going to have to 
ask you about it. It'll have to build a so called white list of 
programs that it wrongly accuses of being malware because of 
something they're doing.

> Technically, there is no reason an organization couldn't use both
> technologies simultaneously.  Yes, it is an anti-malware product
> but it approaches the problem differently than most other
> solutions. 

No, it doesn't. It's eye candy, but the underlying concept is a very 
old and well known one. The technology is used in AV along with 
advanced 'signature' detection that can not only identify potentially 
hundreds or thousands of similiar samples with one signature, but 
tell you specifically what family it belongs to. The SO program won't 
necessarily be able to provide finer details. It's a behavior 
blocker. The AV is also usually able to remove the offending program 
in the event it has established residency on the system. Behavior 
blockers aren't able to do that.

> I have not used it or requested a demonstration yet, but I intend
> to contact the company to determine if it would be appropriate for
> my business. 

If you decide to do so, please report back your findings. I would be 
very interested in learning what you discover.


-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242657

On 8/31/2015 9:14 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is eliminating traditional AV protection from it's
> corporate network.
>
> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry

How could SentinelOne determine whether a file is virus-free? The focus 
should be on the virus signature database rather than the scanners 
themselves, I believe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242791

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:

> On 8/31/2015 9:14 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is eliminating traditional AV protection from it's
>> corporate network.
>>
>> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry
>
> How could SentinelOne determine whether a file is virus-free? The
> focus should be on the virus signature database rather than the
> scanners themselves, I believe.

There are certain behaviors that are necessary for an executable in
order for it to be a virus. If those behaviors or a subset of them are
not normal for a non-malicious executable, then you can watch for them
and assume that anything that displays them is a virus.

That's an oversimplification, but it's the basic concept behind generic
AV protection.

A signature database will always be out of date. That leaves a window of
opportunity for new malware, and once a new piece of malware infects
your Windows computer it's game over because it can completely bypass
any anti-malware software you have installed.

This doesn't even consider the fact that many users allow their
signature update subscriptions to expire for one reason or another.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242809

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
news:EfadnZTBCMjFlmXInZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@supernews.com Tue, 15 Sep 2015
12:13:11 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 8/31/2015 9:14 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is
>>> eliminating traditional AV protection from it's corporate
>>> network. 
>>>
>>> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry
>>
>> How could SentinelOne determine whether a file is virus-free? The
>> focus should be on the virus signature database rather than the
>> scanners themselves, I believe.
> 
> There are certain behaviors that are necessary for an executable
> in order for it to be a virus. If those behaviors or a subset of
> them are not normal for a non-malicious executable, then you can
> watch for them and assume that anything that displays them is a
> virus. 

Are we discussing actual viruses, or what people call viruses? As, 
the sheeple tend to call everything a virus. And, it's an important 
distinction for the purposes of mitigating and/or preventing an 
infection.
 
> A signature database will always be out of date. That leaves a
> window of opportunity for new malware, and once a new piece of
> malware infects your Windows computer it's game over because it
> can completely bypass any anti-malware software you have
> installed. 

It can potentially bypass any antimalware software on the machine, 
certainly. Depends on how the malware was written. Malware alone 
though, isn't actually a virus. Viruses actually do something unique. 
They replicate, intentionally. Trojans (what's malware most of the 
time these days) doesn't do this on it's own.
 
> This doesn't even consider the fact that many users allow their
> signature update subscriptions to expire for one reason or
> another. 

These are the same people who will become annoyed with the behavior 
blocking technologies and disable them, or, tell the program it 
should allow another program to run, when they should have said no.



-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242892

Diesel <me@privacy.net> writes:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
> news:EfadnZTBCMjFlmXInZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@supernews.com Tue, 15 Sep 2015
> 12:13:11 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 
>
>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 8/31/2015 9:14 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>>> Very interesting article about one prominent firm which is
>>>> eliminating traditional AV protection from it's corporate
>>>> network. 
>>>>
>>>> Netflix Is Dumping Anti-Virus, Presages Death Of An Industry
>>>
>>> How could SentinelOne determine whether a file is virus-free? The
>>> focus should be on the virus signature database rather than the
>>> scanners themselves, I believe.
>> 
>> There are certain behaviors that are necessary for an executable
>> in order for it to be a virus. If those behaviors or a subset of
>> them are not normal for a non-malicious executable, then you can
>> watch for them and assume that anything that displays them is a
>> virus. 
>
> Are we discussing actual viruses, or what people call viruses? As, 
> the sheeple tend to call everything a virus. And, it's an important 
> distinction for the purposes of mitigating and/or preventing an 
> infection.

In this specific case I was talking about viruses. I'm also assuming
that replication and infection are malicious behaviors. I said virus
because it's a specific type of malware and does have certain behaviors,
so it's possible to come up with a definition and say that an executable
that does some set of things is a virus.

>  
>> A signature database will always be out of date. That leaves a
>> window of opportunity for new malware, and once a new piece of
>> malware infects your Windows computer it's game over because it
>> can completely bypass any anti-malware software you have
>> installed. 
>
> It can potentially bypass any antimalware software on the machine, 
> certainly. Depends on how the malware was written. Malware alone 
> though, isn't actually a virus. Viruses actually do something unique. 
> They replicate, intentionally. Trojans (what's malware most of the 
> time these days) doesn't do this on it's own.

Signature scanners are no longer limited to just viruses, so I opened up
my statements to malware in general. My point was simply that depending
upon a signature scanner is often the equivalent of locking the barn
after the horse is gone.

>  
>> This doesn't even consider the fact that many users allow their
>> signature update subscriptions to expire for one reason or
>> another. 
>
> These are the same people who will become annoyed with the behavior 
> blocking technologies and disable them, or, tell the program it 
> should allow another program to run, when they should have said no.

This is a very big problem indeed. I feel it's at least partly due to
selling people powerful, general-purpose computers and making them think
you don't need to know anything to operate and maintain one. Most people
need a butter knife and Microsoft sells them a combination Swiss Army
knife and moped. Is it any wonder so many people become traffic
fatalities? :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242921

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
news:K--dnY2ZMKKzEWXInZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@supernews.com Tue, 15 Sep 2015
21:22:53 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 

> In this specific case I was talking about viruses. I'm also
> assuming that replication and infection are malicious behaviors. I
> said virus because it's a specific type of malware and does have
> certain behaviors, so it's possible to come up with a definition
> and say that an executable that does some set of things is a
> virus. 

Ahh.. Yes, somewhat possible. Depending on how you try to look for 
cue's as to what the executing program might be upto. Is it modifying 
this executable to patch it (software update) or turn it rogue? 
Sometimes, that's a hard decision to make automated.
 
>> It can potentially bypass any antimalware software on the
>> machine, certainly. Depends on how the malware was written.
>> Malware alone though, isn't actually a virus. Viruses actually do
>> something unique. They replicate, intentionally. Trojans (what's
>> malware most of the time these days) doesn't do this on it's own.
> 
> Signature scanners are no longer limited to just viruses, so I
> opened up my statements to malware in general. My point was simply
> that depending upon a signature scanner is often the equivalent of
> locking the barn after the horse is gone.

Agreed. However, with the signature based technology; you have a good 
chance of specific ID. Which can lead to an actual cure vs reload the 
box situation. 

For example, if you have an actual .exe infector on your hands and 
you know the virus well, you should! be able to remove it and restore 
that executable. if the virus is a prepending kind, you should be 
able to restore it to it's actual original self, without the 
malicious code. You won't be able to accomplish this with generic 
detection.
 
>> These are the same people who will become annoyed with the
>> behavior blocking technologies and disable them, or, tell the
>> program it should allow another program to run, when they should
>> have said no. 
> 
> This is a very big problem indeed. I feel it's at least partly due
> to selling people powerful, general-purpose computers and making
> them think you don't need to know anything to operate and maintain
> one. Most people need a butter knife and Microsoft sells them a
> combination Swiss Army knife and moped. Is it any wonder so many
> people become traffic fatalities? :)

Muahaha. I like your analogy. I've saved it to explain better to 
others. [g]


-- 
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242950

Diesel <me@privacy.net> writes:

> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
> news:K--dnY2ZMKKzEWXInZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@supernews.com Tue, 15 Sep 2015
> 21:22:53 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: 
>
>> 
>> Signature scanners are no longer limited to just viruses, so I
>> opened up my statements to malware in general. My point was simply
>> that depending upon a signature scanner is often the equivalent of
>> locking the barn after the horse is gone.
>
> Agreed. However, with the signature based technology; you have a good 
> chance of specific ID. Which can lead to an actual cure vs reload the 
> box situation. 

I've never been comfortable with that kind of thing. I feel that once
the system is compromised, you need to reload a known good OS and apps,
and then restore your data from a backup. It's also obviously possible
to do a bare-metal restore from a backup, but then you run into the
problem of being uncertain exactly when the system was infected and not
knowing which of the backups are clean.

>
> For example, if you have an actual .exe infector on your hands and 
> you know the virus well, you should! be able to remove it and restore 
> that executable. if the virus is a prepending kind, you should be 
> able to restore it to it's actual original self, without the 
> malicious code. You won't be able to accomplish this with generic 
> detection.

You make a good point. I wonder how this SentinelOne handles it? On the
other hand, if your generic protection is good, it will block a new
executable from infecting any of your system executables, so you would
perhaps be ok in many situations. The new executable you downloaded or
that came in an e-mail will be trash, but I have no problem with that
forcing the deletion of that kind of thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web