Virus Guy  wrote in
news:m2n4tv$bp4$1@speranza.aioe.org: 

> Dustin wrote:
>  
>> You're expecting a magic bullet and I'm trying to explain to you
> 
> No.  Not me.
> 
> The vast, vast majority of people that buy Anti-virus software
> EXPECT THE ####ING SOFTWARE TO DETECT MALWARE.

It does. It just doesn't detect 100% of it 100% of the time.
 
> And get it through you thick skull that the vast, vast, vast
> majority of people that buy antivirus software don't give a ####
> about the difference between viruses and trojans and worms and
> droppers.  To them, it's all viral.  And you know what - in the
> end it doesn't matter.  It's god damn code that people don't want
> on their systems. 

In the end it does matter. It matters because each one has to be 
detected and removed (if possible) in a different manner. You can't 
remove the majority of viruses (actual viruses) from an infected 
computer just by deleting a file and some registry keys. 

The virus is just going to laugh at you; because it's living (generic 
virus here) inside your executables, it could give two ####s about 
you deleting a registry key or whacking one of your programs. It's 
cool with the idea of you reloading from scratch to remove it. Some 
of my viruses intended for you to be forced into doing that. Irok 
certainly went for your throat if you weren't a technician. And even 
if you were, it would test your real skill.
 
> And also get it through your thick skull that the vast majority of
> the 54 vendors that have software running at VT want people to
> believe that their software will detect THREATENING, DANGEROUS,
> MALICIOUS files the instant they hit their computer, regardless if
> it's a virus or trojan or worm or dropper.

I've been told I have a thick skull several times. I've been in 
several fistfights as a kid. [g] hehehe. Anyways, The software being 
used by VT does detect the issues you listed above. None of them 
detect it all though, is the point you don't seem to get here. It's 
NOT possible to do. 
 
> So stop being disengenous by saying both
> "yea, it's good that 10 out of 54 detect the file"
> 
> and
> 
> "yea, it's good that 44 out of 54 don't detect the file because
> they're not supposed to".

That isn't what I said, so I'm not being shady here.

> You can't have it both ways.

I don't have it both ways. There's only one way. Detection for 100% 
all the time isn't possible.
 
> As a measure of what-the-#### people are buying that software for,
> they expect these god damn files to be detected.  Why else did
> they fork over money for?  Why else are they running that ####ing
> software for? 

Some files are detected. However, it's impossible to detect all of 
the malware in existance all of the time the moment someone submits 
it or their computer encounters it. It's just not possible to do this 
under the conditions most computers (windows based computers) are 
exposed to.

They are running the software as part of what should be, a multi 
layer security approach to keeping their machine safer. They want to 
do this because that machine might have personal information on it, 
or business or something else of a private nature. Even if it's not 
used for that, who wants to have to reload their game and restore 
saved states in it because a virus got their box? Nobody, of course.

You cannot rely on a single product or all of the products in use by 
VT to catch all of the malware, all of the time. It's NOT possible. 
If you'd just spend a little time learning how your computer actually 
does what you use it for everyday, this really would make sense to 
you. Honestly, I'm not blowing smoke up your ass here. What you're 
asking for/demanding, isn't possible.
 
-- 
If you can read this, Thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in english, Thank a soldier!


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2