"Thane"  wrote in message 
news:kICdna-H7YiGjq_JnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:59:13 +0000, mark lewis wrote:
>
>
>I haven't used, and therefore can't vouch for Sucuri, but it's a legit
>multi-national company based in California and one of the few which
>understands the WordPress issues many of the compromised sites are
>experiencing.
>
>This original poster in this thread is on M$ IIS/7.0 and the Sucuri
>webtool identified multiple issues with the infection, so that gave me a
>positive impression to start with. I've used this free tool to examine
>many compromised sites which have been infiltrated by spammers. Most are
>WordPress, but not all. Additionally, I have a few contacts who have used
>this company and they claim positive results.
>
>In the absence of a dedicated IT staff, companies are faced with how to
>maintain a clean web presence. So my take (yes it's a personal one), in
>the absence of staff who know what they are doing, then outsourcing the
>security to a company who does understand it, makes total sense. They
>(Sucuri) publish an $90 per year charge for a website, which sounds to me
>extremely cost effective. In the end, it's not my money or decision, but
>it's an option.
>
>It's worthwhile to check thegreatwall dot ca on Sucuri and you'll see the
>detail this free tool offers. If you understand how to fix your own
>sites, and can monitor and maintain them, great. Otherwise, if it were
>me, I'd outsource this to someone who understands it.
>
>Peace.
>
>Thane

Avast  hit on several posts in this thread with a High threat level and also 
HTML:Script-inf . This was with the Avast def from yesterday and the new 
defs this am.
Just for your info. This last post was clean.
Neither VirusTotal, MBAM or SAS found any problems.
-- 
Buffalo 

--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2