On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:00:44 +0000 (UTC), Dustin
 wrote:

>"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.

So privilege escalation isn't rare then? and it's easy to achieve? What
percentage of malware written for XP do you contend uses it?

>> Added alt.comp.anti-virus
>
>I have no problem with this. Maybe when you read the same information 
>from others, it'll sink in.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

-- 
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, 
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, 
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, 
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, 
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, and scouringerer.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2