Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 28, 2007 at 2:04 am in reply to: YTK Pro Now Available! *pre-release to release info tracking* #155854dr_webMemberwilber;214155 wrote:For one thing don’t be miss-lead by something calming to be unbootable, Because for one thing “nothing” is “unbootable”
Right now those guys can say it’s unbootable… because it is at this time! Have you purchased a license for YTK Pro?
dr_webMemberdaz_d_baker_man wrote:well, it had already downloaded as in the green bar had gone up to the top. Then it said i have successfully recieved the file. So i clicked on the link in the conversation window and yes it came up with the potentially unsafe box. I know that you can unblock it by right clicking on the file in ‘Recieved Files’ but it wasnt in there… so im stumped! Thanks anyway, next time the box comes up i’ll check the little box 🙂Hmm – I wonder if this file has the invisible attribute attached. Can you select ‘show hidden files and folders’ in the ‘folder options’ menu?
dr_webMemberEvilSeph wrote:Renaming the file to another extension is a work around for this security feature too.test.exe renamed to test.exe2
😀 I thought someone might mention this… It’s worth noting that such extensions are invisible by default. If the user goes about adding a .exe2 to the end of the name of his file with these extensions invisible he would end up with something like file.exe2.exe . One would have to disable ‘hide file extensions for known files’ in the Folder Options to complete your tip :woot:
dr_webMemberdaz_d_baker_man wrote:My friend sent me a file and messenger has seen it as potentially unsafe, it was a song to be precise. (not copyrighted!) I’ve tryed locating the file in recieved files but it isnt there 🙁 Can anyone help me? where is the file?The file was not sent as a security policy enforced by messenger prevented this. Executable file types are prevented from being transferred to inhibit the spreading for IM-Worms (Instant Messenger Worms). You say this was a music file ie. mp3, .acc, .wav etc. Can you confirm this file type? If you friend wishes to send it they can zip the file and this should get through without problems.
dr_webMemberDermot wrote:i think perhaps he was talking about nortons 2005?But i wouldnt recommend norton as its bad.
You’ll need to elaborate on ‘Bad’ 😀 – According to av-comparatives.org Norton scores well for detection of ITW and ZOO malware not to mention it scores 100% on Virus btn for all supported platforms now. Since they have expanded the threat band (ie. to include adware and other non viral malware by default) it does even better. Yes it’s a drain on system resources but you need to specify why you think that it’s bad.
Dermot wrote:With these password stealers you need a decent heuristics/sandbox anti virus.Since this malware exhibits traits which are not typical of generic trojans, the chance of it being detected with heuristics is virtually nill ie. PWS is via IM, no backdoor, no attempt to terminate AV or firewall application. Not enough ‘typical’ malicious activity for AV to flag as ‘suspect’. So, it’s no surprise that _NO_ commercial scanner detected this with heuristics.
Dermot wrote:Now “Norman” a company that sounds like norton actually have not a bad heuristics engine to pick up new threats.Yeah but this type of ‘sanbox’ emulation has major affect on execution time (application performance) which in the majority of cases on just not acceptable especially for business. Also, Norman scores poorly in independant testing for signature based detection. I couldn’t recommend it on it’s proactive detection capabilities alone. NOD32’s generic unpacking and emulation engine works a lot better ie. it’s almost transparent.
-
AuthorPosts