"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote in
news:9ma04alrff3i65armitb8emu4f0373eotv@4ax.com: 

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Dustin
>  wrote:
> 
>>"p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote
>>in news:u3jv3a5dp44l10cblfjvv1ta8k84a1leml@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:37:21 +0000, Charles Lindbergh
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:29:07 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer
>>>>(austria)"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article 
>>>>>~BD~  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone here use this?
>>>>>> http://www.brightfort.com/spywareblaster.html 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, is it considered to be as good as/better than/worse
>>>>>> than Malwarebytes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was 'recommended' to me way back, in post 3 on this forum:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/topic/58733-adware-away/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They are not similar programs by any means.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've used spywareblaster for some years. It stays out of the
>>>>>way and doesn't screw up the machine, and that's more than I
>>>>>can say for the resource hog malwarebytes. I had the paid
>>>>>version of the latter and it slowed my machine. It also didn't
>>>>>behave nice with certain other programs. It never caught
>>>>>anything in the year or more I ran it. I dumped it. The great
>>>>>reviews you read here about it are from an ignorant
>>>>>malwarebytes fan club. I use only the Win XP firewall and a
>>>>>paid AV. I haven't had an infection in so many years I can
>>>>>hardly remember when that was. Almost all this "defensive"
>>>>>crap, including software firewalls, are little more than
>>>>>amusement for bored users who have to be kept supplied with 
>>>>>new toys. (Let the games now begin - but first, give me a few
>>>>>moments to get the cotton in my ears.) 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But, could you turn loose on your machine, for 3 hours, a 13
>>>>year old grandchild (unsupervised) and have it remain so
>>>>pristine? 
>>> 
>>> Just giving them a separate account without administrator
>>> privileges will solve 99% of the problem.
>>
>>No, it won't. :) Clearly you prefer to deny the fact that rights 
>>escalation malware does exist and he's using windows XP. [g]
> 
> You're talking bollocks Dusty. There is less rights escalation
> malware written for XP because so many people run with admin
> rights anyway and there is no UAC to contend with.

I'm not talking bollocks in the least little bit. UAC is a joke, an 
annoying one, but still, a joke...

 
> Privilege escalation is rare and difficult to achieve. That's what
> the 1% is for :)

You're mistaken, as usual.
 
> Added alt.comp.anti-virus

I have no problem with this. Maybe when you read the same information 
from others, it'll sink in.
 


-- 
If you can read this, Thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in english, Thank a soldier!


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2