zaphod

Hi, my nickname is of course, Zaphod. I've allready posted in a few places around here, but as a courtesy, I thought I would open this thread to give space to anyone who wishes to ask me questions. My first computer, other than a 2600VCS with a BASIC cartridge, was a Timex/Sinclair 1000 in early 1983. About a year later, about the time the membrane keyboard cracked through, I got myself an Atari 800XL and the world changed for me. Then, in 1986 I got my XM301 modem and I've been online ever since. My current effort is in developing a GNU/GPL V2 php program designed to wrap about any php website, forum, blog, or what-have-not with a layer of hack, injection, and anti-spam protection. Where it is running now, it seems to do well, but I am always looking for more beta testers. (I am only at version 0.4.5) The reason I originally came to this forum, is that I hang out on other forums loyal to Malwarebytes, and when the latest nastiness broke out, it was time to "Rally 'Round the Flag". Though I am no fanboy of Malwarebytes, I do greatly respect their software, and it's ability to remove nasties like FakeXPA (at a time when no one else could, it was a godsend for some). Keep up the good work MB, as long as you steer your current course, I will send the lost your way. Zap

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for my pun to kill this thread. Zap

Thanks for the support. And I'm most definitely a he.Zap

I am usually dealing with this IP and behavior blocking from the other way around (client to server, instead of server to client)... Also I am making a guess about things here, but if your blocking module has the ability to modify a bitstream, rather than just blocking it with a replacement page, would it not be better on a blocked IP to simply strip out the hostile code, assuming most of the problems can be found inside of <script> and <embed> tags, and showing a "safed" version of the page, like Privoxy or Proxomitron? IMHO whitelisting is bad, because a baddie only needs to be whitelisted once to cause massive mayhem. Also, if a user misunderstands the power of whitelisting, and gets hammered by something, they could blame Malwarebytes as being ineffective. So, I would also think in order to bypass a block, that the software should report back to Malwarebytes that the user has decided not to trust the software and all implied warranties to license number XXXXX are null and void because they decided they knew better about a blocked address. Zap

It went much deeper on the VAXes than this. It went right down to chip level. Please see: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html I could just DIE laughing over that. Zap

Actually, musing on this, it would be nice if the legit companies formed a union and shared research, and detection information, but did not share detection engines, or removal systems.This would at least allow for rapid detection of new threats by any member company, but still keep competition going regarding accuracy of detection engines, and speed of said engines. Also the ability to remove said problems would be distinct and unique to each member company. Thus, the best still win. If anything, it would allow for more man-hours to be dedicated to more threats. Of course, membership in such a group would be voluntary, and subject to peer review, and not just grabbing and going like 2-bit. (Yes, 2 bit, not 10bit. Because there are 10 kinds of people who understand binary, those who do, and those who don't.) In analogy... Alot of countries fought the same Nazis in WWII, and shared information on the enemy, and how to find them, however, all of them brought their own equipment to the fight, and their own strategies on how to best deploy it. Zap

Excellent interview! I don't think I could have kept as level-headed, and cool given the circumstances, but then again, maybe that's why I'm not a CEO. Zap

Yeah, but from what I see, answers are running really low!Seems they are mostly belittling the question askers, dodging the issues raised, and just using their forum for emotional release of their frustrations. Quite amusing to watch, as their inability to admit to dishonorable acts, only increases their dishonor. They could have at least blamed a lazy ghost employee (and watch this, I bet this happens now, mark the time of this post, just in case), for importing MBAM's signatures into their product, rather than doing actual work of his own. Anyone want to take bets against this? Zap

Ya know, I mentioned this somewhere else, maybe it bears repeating, but if one of the mods wants to, delete it... it's pretty inflammatory and just a musing. I have heard elsewhere that there might be ties between IObit and Chinese intelligence. Probably just rumors, but imagine if they were able to capture a large market share through their free software. Now, imagine someday, all the NATO IPs requesting an automatic update for the scanner were told that ntldr is a hostile file, and must be deleted. Quite the cyber-nuke if you ask me. Semper vigilis, Zap

There ain't enough digital kitty litter in cyberspace to cover up the stinky pile they made. I pray that Malwarebytes goes ahead with a suit, or at least contacts their department of state (I was going to say the US State Dept. But honestly, I have no clue where Malwarebytes' home is), show the evidence, and perhaps it will be useful in levying sanctions against China for their known rampant piracy and lack of care regarding allowing cybercrime outfits to operate within their borders. Zap

Just to let you know, there's alot of suspicious shills over at Web Of Trust pumping back up Iobit's ratings. Simply based on previous volume statistics of WOT reports on Iobit, the new positive reports are a virtual flood, of course, so are the deserved negative ones. Zap

Just an observation here... A soldier like MG will follow his marching orders, a warrior will follow their heart and sense of right and wrong. Props to Suzi. Zap