If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
On 03/04/2010 12:04 AM, webster72n wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... On 03/03/2010 07:12 PM, webster72n wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... On 03/03/2010 01:14 PM, webster72n wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. As for the updates, version 5 already exist and it is not compatible with Win9X nor are, apparently, the updates used within it. There are two SPECIFIC manual updates available, one for 5, one for 4.8: http://www.avast.com/download-update Thanks, we'll give it a whirl. H. Let us know, "inquiring minds want to know" {gees can I say that... has that been trademarked..grin} MEB: After it must have downloaded 3/4 of the 38.5 MB and in my absence IE6 crashed and somewhere in the potpouri it told me in broken letters that it ran out of MER or MEB(?) I believe, which I concluded to be memory, yet it shouldn't have been. No problem getting it fixed, but I'll have to start from scratch and then keep a closer eye on it. Once done with it, you'll get to know. Thanks for your concern. Harry. That's not good. IE shouldn't crash just because of a download. Are you currently updated on AV and have you done a recent scan? Or had you connected to somewhere else before you attempted the download? Or are you using a phone-line ISP connection?? It seems as though it has updated itself to the latest version, without me needing to download the whole thing. BTW, the latest version for ME is 4.8.1386, not 4.8.0., isn't it? IOW, I'm in good shape right now, with no problems - knock, knock on wood. Thanks for your attention, MEB. Harry. Oh, I misinterpreted your intent, I had thought you were going the v5.0. update to 4.8. test. Okay, good then, at least you are current. That may be why your download attempt failed - during the auto-update Yeah, as far as I know that is the present sub-version, maybe the last. The 4.8.(0) signifies the MAJOR version not the sub-version [.1386]. V5 is also not just 5.0 but has at least 5.0.{sub-version} now. Oh, and I hope you have a backup/image handy for your system before you try the test "just in case". [anyone care to test that theory] Though there are similar versions, such as 4.7.4 or 3.0.1, for Linux, BSD, Solaris [depending upon usage -server editions] or 1.3.0 [home workstation], or MAC (2.74), it is doubtful those VPS files would benefit Windows users. Thanks, Jerry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold -- MEB -- MEB -- MEB -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
Hello Again: I have again contacted ALWIL support with my question and received this second response below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello: Thank you for your reply. However, I'm still not completely clear on ALWIL's policy in this matter. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? Thanks again, Jerry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, exactly. We will be updating avast! 4.8 virus definitions till end of 2010, but we do not plan to release any further program update for avast! 4.8. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jerry Martin" wrote in message ... Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? Thanks, Jerry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
I don't remember slapping you gmind you you must have deserved it if I did
eg -- Joan Archer http://crossstitcher.webs.com/ "Noel Paton" wrote in message ... Careful Robear - Joan's got a vicious slap when she wants! eg (Mow might oject to breach of trademark, also!) -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message ... Mow power to you... Joan Archer wrote: lol I know that feeling but mine are real babies I'm sitting for g Babysitting duties... Hello Robear not often we see you in the WinME ng g Ask such questions he http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=2.0 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
MEB wrote:
On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. As for the updates, version 5 already exist and it is not compatible with Win9X nor are, apparently, the updates used within it. There are two SPECIFIC manual updates available, one for 5, one for 4.8: http://www.avast.com/download-update [anyone care to test that theory] I'll look into it tomorrow. Today -- & the last time I've tried downloading from that avast! site you keep posting-- I get told my security settings won't allow it. And I run into a snag trying to play with them. Looks like avast! prevents it while it's updating its virus definitions. There are things I can't do while that is going on -- like using Explorer or much of the Taskbar! Uhm, are you updating FROM the site, like running from there?? No! It wouldn't let me take the dowwnload to a folder -- but changing the security setting did the trick. But I've stopped the download -- it wanted another 2 hrs. 15 mins. to complete! This won't be the answer for me (if it takes that long) to get new defs when avast! stops providing them automatically. Was I supposed to be just getting manual def updates from there or the whole program plus all the defs -- even the ones I've already got? Now, I've changed my Internet Zone security level back to high. It worked instantaneously with avast! all done with its defs update. There are things that can't be done quick with that going on! But now I've got my security settings back to medium (instead of high) for the Internet Zone (it didn't help to have avast! in the Trusted Zone with medium settings, though!) -- & I'll try the download tomorrow. It better work! Maybe Webster72n will have reported by then, anyhow. That seems like a massive download! Yeah, both of them were... one 30 the other 35 IIRC. That takes too long to update virus defs that way. I'm still on dial-up! Though there are similar versions, such as 4.7.4 or 3.0.1, for Linux, BSD, Solaris [depending upon usage -server editions] or 1.3.0 [home workstation], or MAC (2.74), it is doubtful those VPS files would benefit Windows users. Yea -- I wouldn't trust that. Not something I'd suggest, though "push comes to shove"... I see what you're saying. I expect to begin a mad scramble in October or so. Thanks, Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- ---------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold -- Thanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
Jerry Martin wrote:
Hello Again: I have again contacted ALWIL support with my question and received this second response below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Hello: Thank you for your reply. However, I'm still not completely clear on ALWIL's policy in this matter. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? It still sounds to me your interpretation is sadly correct. Did you ask him whether he thought any new or modified old viruses were affecting Win98? Me & MEB want to know! Thanks again, Jerry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Hello, exactly. We will be updating avast! 4.8 virus definitions till end of 2010, but we do not plan to release any further program update for avast! 4.8. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - "Jerry Martin" wrote in message ... Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? Thanks, Jerry --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold -- Thanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
On 03/04/2010 11:32 PM, PCR wrote:
MEB wrote: On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Right. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. Well, its a bit more than that. The engine and its on-access/online scanning with its heuristics and methods is outdated already. This what the major issue appears to be now with even the supported/updated AV, they aren't catching what they should; hacker methods and exploits are changing faster than they can keep up, way faster. As for the updates, version 5 already exist and it is not compatible with Win9X nor are, apparently, the updates used within it. There are two SPECIFIC manual updates available, one for 5, one for 4.8: http://www.avast.com/download-update [anyone care to test that theory] I'll look into it tomorrow. Today -- & the last time I've tried downloading from that avast! site you keep posting-- I get told my security settings won't allow it. And I run into a snag trying to play with them. Looks like avast! prevents it while it's updating its virus definitions. There are things I can't do while that is going on -- like using Explorer or much of the Taskbar! Uhm, are you updating FROM the site, like running from there?? No! It wouldn't let me take the dowwnload to a folder -- but changing the security setting did the trick. But I've stopped the download -- it wanted another 2 hrs. 15 mins. to complete! This won't be the answer for me (if it takes that long) to get new defs when avast! stops providing them automatically. Was I supposed to be just getting manual def updates from there or the whole program plus all the defs -- even the ones I've already got? Oh no, it was just to show there were 2 different update packages for defs... and see if someone felt like trying the 5 version updates in 4 or rather, just the files expanded rather than using the installer... for compatibility issues and potential usage in 4. Now, I've changed my Internet Zone security level back to high. It worked instantaneously with avast! all done with its defs update. There are things that can't be done quick with that going on! High is definitely the recommendation... But now I've got my security settings back to medium (instead of high) for the Internet Zone (it didn't help to have avast! in the Trusted Zone with medium settings, though!) -- & I'll try the download tomorrow. It better work! Maybe Webster72n will have reported by then, anyhow. That seems like a massive download! Yeah, both of them were... one 30 the other 35 IIRC. That takes too long to update virus defs that way. I'm still on dial-up! Yeah, I know, waaaayy toooooo lllloooooonnnnngggg. Though there are similar versions, such as 4.7.4 or 3.0.1, for Linux, BSD, Solaris [depending upon usage -server editions] or 1.3.0 [home workstation], or MAC (2.74), it is doubtful those VPS files would benefit Windows users. Yea -- I wouldn't trust that. Not something I'd suggest, though "push comes to shove"... I see what you're saying. I expect to begin a mad scramble in October or so. Good luck, I'm not finding many left with support for 9X/ME. Anyway, suppose we should kill some of this material and drop the cross-post if we continue for some reason. Thanks, Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- ---------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
MEB wrote:
On 03/04/2010 11:32 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Right. OK. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. Well, its a bit more than that. The engine and its on-access/online scanning with its heuristics and methods is outdated already. This what the major issue appears to be now with even the supported/updated AV, they aren't catching what they should; hacker methods and exploits are changing faster than they can keep up, way faster. I think -- if the question will get to Vanous -- he might put mention of heuristics in his answer -- if he's really any good. Could be the heuristics as they relate to Win98 are actually unchanged, i.e., there is only so much behavior that a thing can do to look like a virus in Win98 (which is my understanding of what heuristics is). Also, don't forget, avast! has other capabilities that might be worth a try -- such as customizing the Standard Shield to block opening, renaming, deleting of files & formatting of drives. I haven't tried it yet because it may make things awkward to do. Looks like, when a thing is blocked, a requestor will be put up whether to allow it -- I really should try! As for the updates, version 5 already exist and it is not compatible with Win9X nor are, apparently, the updates used within it. There are two SPECIFIC manual updates available, one for 5, one for 4.8: http://www.avast.com/download-update [anyone care to test that theory] I'll look into it tomorrow. Today -- & the last time I've tried downloading from that avast! site you keep posting-- I get told my security settings won't allow it. And I run into a snag trying to play with them. Looks like avast! prevents it while it's updating its virus definitions. There are things I can't do while that is going on -- like using Explorer or much of the Taskbar! Uhm, are you updating FROM the site, like running from there?? No! It wouldn't let me take the dowwnload to a folder -- but changing the security setting did the trick. But I've stopped the download -- it wanted another 2 hrs. 15 mins. to complete! This won't be the answer for me (if it takes that long) to get new defs when avast! stops providing them automatically. Was I supposed to be just getting manual def updates from there or the whole program plus all the defs -- even the ones I've already got? Oh no, it was just to show there were 2 different update packages for defs... and see if someone felt like trying the 5 version updates in 4 or rather, just the files expanded rather than using the installer... for compatibility issues and potential usage in 4. I get it now. Nevertheless, it would be overly time-consuming to do on a regular basis. Interesting thought for someone a lot quicker, though! Now, I've changed my Internet Zone security level back to high. It worked instantaneously with avast! all done with its defs update. There are things that can't be done quick with that going on! High is definitely the recommendation... It seems to prevent a download from that site when the Internet Zone is high security, even after putting it into Trusted Sites with medium security. IE6 then described the site as trusted in the Status Bar-- but refused to start the download! I don't know -- could be the download was farmed off to another site, I guess -- but I didn't see it in the Address Bar. But now I've got my security settings back to medium (instead of high) for the Internet Zone (it didn't help to have avast! in the Trusted Zone with medium settings, though!) -- & I'll try the download tomorrow. It better work! Maybe Webster72n will have reported by then, anyhow. That seems like a massive download! Yeah, both of them were... one 30 the other 35 IIRC. That takes too long to update virus defs that way. I'm still on dial-up! Yeah, I know, waaaayy toooooo lllloooooonnnnngggg. Absoooooooluuuuuuuutely! Though there are similar versions, such as 4.7.4 or 3.0.1, for Linux, BSD, Solaris [depending upon usage -server editions] or 1.3.0 [home workstation], or MAC (2.74), it is doubtful those VPS files would benefit Windows users. Yea -- I wouldn't trust that. Not something I'd suggest, though "push comes to shove"... I see what you're saying. I expect to begin a mad scramble in October or so. Good luck, I'm not finding many left with support for 9X/ME. Anyway, suppose we should kill some of this material and drop the cross-post if we continue for some reason. I'll follow your lead. Thanks, Jerry ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- ---------- Hello, support for Windows 98/ME has ended with year 2009, but we will be releasing new virus definitions for avast! 4.8 till the end of this year. Best regards, Jakub Vanous ALWIL Software a.s. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: ZFU-618246 Department: [ENG] Technical support Priority: Default Status: On Hold -- Thanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
On 03/05/2010 10:08 PM, PCR wrote:
Okay, cut a bit.. change the direction a bit ... MEB wrote: On 03/04/2010 11:32 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Right. OK. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. Well, its a bit more than that. The engine and its on-access/online scanning with its heuristics and methods is outdated already. This what the major issue appears to be now with even the supported/updated AV, they aren't catching what they should; hacker methods and exploits are changing faster than they can keep up, way faster. I think -- if the question will get to Vanous -- he might put mention of heuristics in his answer -- if he's really any good. Could be the heuristics as they relate to Win98 are actually unchanged, i.e., there is only so much behavior that a thing can do to look like a virus in Win98 (which is my understanding of what heuristics is). Okay, maybe we need a bit more here. A large part of the activity now isn't "virus" activity like most people think of where it attacks all your files, crashes your system, you know, that crap -like the old days; its using computers in botnets for various functions like: to drain big bank accounts; DDoS of large corporations; taking and use your accounts for other uses; and other sundry stuff. It doesn't take much from any individual computer since these rely upon massive amounts already hacked - if you've ever P2P/tor/whatever for files, music, movies, or stuff, you should understand the concept of massed computers working together on various things. For instance, in just the last two months, 2 massive hacker networks were taken down, one in China [over 170,000 hackers registered], the other in Spain [Mariposa botnet - reported as having around 12.7 million hacked computers under its control INCLUDING many Fortune 500 companies here in the US]. The "virus" like activity is now NOT static [which defs can be used against] for the most part because its counter-productive to have these discovered, instead constantly changing "hacks" [polymorphic] of whatever THAT computer's function is in the botnet [like just a repeater for control codes, IP to use in DDoS attacks, whatever] is what is occurring more often. Since these are constantly changing, it is extremely hard to detect them, because use of the Internet requires so many things go on JUST when viewing pages or normal usage. Not even UDP packets [like DNS, streaming, etc.] are safe from usage by hackers. You have indicated that there must be some limit to what can be done in a Win9X computer... whereas its mo WHY would you think there would be some limit. The ability to install background hacks into the 9X/ME system was accomplished years ago. IE does allow background hidden instances, and numerous other, were all proofed. One of the MOST vulnerable parts of the NTs IS/was the DOS/CMD/backward compatibility - 32bit-16bit coding - the 17 year old vulnerability; that is basically what Win9X/ME coding is. In those systems, this was used to elevate privileges and install programs, in 9X/ME there are no privileges to overcome, no real user account protections even. CVE-2010-0232 MS10-015 "What is the Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem? The Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem is a protected environment subsystem that emulates MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows within Windows NT-based operating systems. A VDM is created whenever a user starts an MS-DOS application on a Windows NT-based operating system." Why is it so hard to put this aspect, this coding vulnerability/this exploitable aspect, in context with the environments that use it AS the OS, no emulation required. There is no protective overlaying OS which has to be hacked to get at the coding vulnerability, because that IS inherent in and to the OS. This isn't the only issue which revolves around the Intel/32bit-16bit/legacy code aspect. Couple this issue with the IE6 exploits, OE exploits, outdated Flash and JAVA, RealPlayer exploits, FireFox exploits, and, uhh, put some name here and its likely exploitable. The problem is these aren't the hackers of old, like a pimply faced teenage kid writing some virus code and sending up with a nifty new application; these are literally professionals for the most part, they SELL: exploit code; bots; hack kits; use of their botnets or already setup botnets; setup entire servers; sell personal information and account information; and whatever is needed/used/wanted; these have become businesses - criminal organizations for profit. Do they have 9X/ME worms, trojans, and hacks, ah yeah, they've had them for years. Are they the same as the defs know, no unless someone attempts to use one of the old ones; are they the same as might be found by the old style heuristic methods, not likely, they are much more sophisticated; its *profitable* to have as many computers hacked, and hacks/exploits as might be wanted in that consumer market. Which brings us back to my comment that I couldn't say what was going on with these things NOW, because I stopped using and testing Win9X for issues and vulnerabilities about, what, around four months ago. I did however advise of several things PRIOR to ending this last activity with Win9X as my primary OS and Internet connection. I *was* using AVAST with custom settings, and extra protections and applications, and which didn't stop the malicious activity or keep me from becoming severely infected. Of course I went looking for this stuff... Also, don't forget, avast! has other capabilities that might be worth a try -- such as customizing the Standard Shield to block opening, renaming, deleting of files & formatting of drives. I haven't tried it yet because it may make things awkward to do. Looks like, when a thing is blocked, a requestor will be put up whether to allow it -- I really should try! Yeah I tried several custom settings.. I also had mine set to show ALL the activity it was doing. Yep, tried a lot of stuff that last couple years of testing.... Try it out, would useful now. And that "makes things awkward to do" aspect is what causes a large percentage of Windows, IE, Flash, and JAVA exploits to work. In the same light as XP and other users using administrator accounts to access the Internet because its inconvenient to use a protected/limited account, and those who won't get the updates because their OS is pirated or they think Microsoft is "spying on them". -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
Obviously you are 'into it', MEB.
Couldn't that be exactly the reason why you got infected? Doing too many things a cautious user wouldn't do? Personally I don't seem to have those problems. Just an observation, mind you... Harry. "MEB" wrote in message ... On 03/05/2010 10:08 PM, PCR wrote: Okay, cut a bit.. change the direction a bit ... MEB wrote: On 03/04/2010 11:32 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Right. OK. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. Well, its a bit more than that. The engine and its on-access/online scanning with its heuristics and methods is outdated already. This what the major issue appears to be now with even the supported/updated AV, they aren't catching what they should; hacker methods and exploits are changing faster than they can keep up, way faster. I think -- if the question will get to Vanous -- he might put mention of heuristics in his answer -- if he's really any good. Could be the heuristics as they relate to Win98 are actually unchanged, i.e., there is only so much behavior that a thing can do to look like a virus in Win98 (which is my understanding of what heuristics is). Okay, maybe we need a bit more here. A large part of the activity now isn't "virus" activity like most people think of where it attacks all your files, crashes your system, you know, that crap -like the old days; its using computers in botnets for various functions like: to drain big bank accounts; DDoS of large corporations; taking and use your accounts for other uses; and other sundry stuff. It doesn't take much from any individual computer since these rely upon massive amounts already hacked - if you've ever P2P/tor/whatever for files, music, movies, or stuff, you should understand the concept of massed computers working together on various things. For instance, in just the last two months, 2 massive hacker networks were taken down, one in China [over 170,000 hackers registered], the other in Spain [Mariposa botnet - reported as having around 12.7 million hacked computers under its control INCLUDING many Fortune 500 companies here in the US]. The "virus" like activity is now NOT static [which defs can be used against] for the most part because its counter-productive to have these discovered, instead constantly changing "hacks" [polymorphic] of whatever THAT computer's function is in the botnet [like just a repeater for control codes, IP to use in DDoS attacks, whatever] is what is occurring more often. Since these are constantly changing, it is extremely hard to detect them, because use of the Internet requires so many things go on JUST when viewing pages or normal usage. Not even UDP packets [like DNS, streaming, etc.] are safe from usage by hackers. You have indicated that there must be some limit to what can be done in a Win9X computer... whereas its mo WHY would you think there would be some limit. The ability to install background hacks into the 9X/ME system was accomplished years ago. IE does allow background hidden instances, and numerous other, were all proofed. One of the MOST vulnerable parts of the NTs IS/was the DOS/CMD/backward compatibility - 32bit-16bit coding - the 17 year old vulnerability; that is basically what Win9X/ME coding is. In those systems, this was used to elevate privileges and install programs, in 9X/ME there are no privileges to overcome, no real user account protections even. CVE-2010-0232 MS10-015 "What is the Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem? The Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem is a protected environment subsystem that emulates MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows within Windows NT-based operating systems. A VDM is created whenever a user starts an MS-DOS application on a Windows NT-based operating system." Why is it so hard to put this aspect, this coding vulnerability/this exploitable aspect, in context with the environments that use it AS the OS, no emulation required. There is no protective overlaying OS which has to be hacked to get at the coding vulnerability, because that IS inherent in and to the OS. This isn't the only issue which revolves around the Intel/32bit-16bit/legacy code aspect. Couple this issue with the IE6 exploits, OE exploits, outdated Flash and JAVA, RealPlayer exploits, FireFox exploits, and, uhh, put some name here and its likely exploitable. The problem is these aren't the hackers of old, like a pimply faced teenage kid writing some virus code and sending up with a nifty new application; these are literally professionals for the most part, they SELL: exploit code; bots; hack kits; use of their botnets or already setup botnets; setup entire servers; sell personal information and account information; and whatever is needed/used/wanted; these have become businesses - criminal organizations for profit. Do they have 9X/ME worms, trojans, and hacks, ah yeah, they've had them for years. Are they the same as the defs know, no unless someone attempts to use one of the old ones; are they the same as might be found by the old style heuristic methods, not likely, they are much more sophisticated; its *profitable* to have as many computers hacked, and hacks/exploits as might be wanted in that consumer market. Which brings us back to my comment that I couldn't say what was going on with these things NOW, because I stopped using and testing Win9X for issues and vulnerabilities about, what, around four months ago. I did however advise of several things PRIOR to ending this last activity with Win9X as my primary OS and Internet connection. I *was* using AVAST with custom settings, and extra protections and applications, and which didn't stop the malicious activity or keep me from becoming severely infected. Of course I went looking for this stuff... Also, don't forget, avast! has other capabilities that might be worth a try -- such as customizing the Standard Shield to block opening, renaming, deleting of files & formatting of drives. I haven't tried it yet because it may make things awkward to do. Looks like, when a thing is blocked, a requestor will be put up whether to allow it -- I really should try! Yeah I tried several custom settings.. I also had mine set to show ALL the activity it was doing. Yep, tried a lot of stuff that last couple years of testing.... Try it out, would useful now. And that "makes things awkward to do" aspect is what causes a large percentage of Windows, IE, Flash, and JAVA exploits to work. In the same light as XP and other users using administrator accounts to access the Internet because its inconvenient to use a protected/limited account, and those who won't get the updates because their OS is pirated or they think Microsoft is "spying on them". -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
End Of Support For avast! 4.8
On 03/06/2010 11:58 AM, webster72n wrote:
Obviously you are 'into it', MEB. Couldn't that be exactly the reason why you got infected? Doing too many things a cautious user wouldn't do? Personally I don't seem to have those problems. Just an observation, mind you... Harry. Really? And how do you know that? Do you run packet sniffing software EVERY TIME you connect to the Internet? Are you skilled enough to recognize these forms/styles of hacks and whatever coding and/or transmissions might be involved? OH, and yeah, that IS why I became infected by LOOKING for this activity; that WAS the point; how do you think most of these things are discovered, monitored, traced, tracked, and the parties involved brought to justice or some protection erected against these things? What? Is it magic, speculation, pure guess??? "MEB" wrote in message ... On 03/05/2010 10:08 PM, PCR wrote: Okay, cut a bit.. change the direction a bit ... MEB wrote: On 03/04/2010 11:32 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/03/2010 08:04 PM, PCR wrote: MEB wrote: On 03/02/2010 07:29 PM, PCR wrote: Jerry Martin wrote: Hello: The following is the response I received from ALWIL Software when I inquired about the end of support for avast! v4.8 and the end of support for Windows 98/ME. I'm not completely clear of the statement that support for Windows 98/ME ended at the end of 2009, but that definition updates will be provide until the end of 2010. Should I interpret this to mean that the avast! v4.8 program files will not be updated, but that definition update file that will work with Windows 98/ME will be supplied until the end of 2010? I share your interpretation. Sounds like procrastination in this matter must end for me by October or so -- & I must scramble then for protection! What a pity! Can you ask that Vanous whether he's found new viruses that affect Win98 lately -- or is he just giving us stuff for XP? I think that answer will be hard to provide since polymorphic, encrypted and hidden aspects, and other malicious activities now dominate any infection, and hence its detection. You're saying it's hard to tell Win98 viruses apart from XP types? I'm hoping Vanous might know whether anything new has recently been detected for Win98 & been put into the avast! definitions. Ah no I'm not actually "saying" anything. Just observing that with the application of polymorphic changes to almost everything being done maliciously, what MAY have the defs and malware activities associated with Win9X virus and other exploits, at any specific previous time, may not be now... seems entirely plausible that is likely occurring. And it really doesn't take much to change an old hack or virus for Win9X into a new one that could slip by, nor to just use a 9X system in just a control or distribution capacity; not much there to stop it or even notice it. I see -- you mean the virus signature may change & get by old avast! defs. OK. Right. OK. Still, it would be interesting to know, though taken with a "grain of salt". so to speak.. Uh-huh. I see Martin hasn't had a chance to pass the query along, though. Yep, still waiting.. Me too. And I think signature changes are covered in my question that I wish to be passed along to Vanous. Well, its a bit more than that. The engine and its on-access/online scanning with its heuristics and methods is outdated already. This what the major issue appears to be now with even the supported/updated AV, they aren't catching what they should; hacker methods and exploits are changing faster than they can keep up, way faster. I think -- if the question will get to Vanous -- he might put mention of heuristics in his answer -- if he's really any good. Could be the heuristics as they relate to Win98 are actually unchanged, i.e., there is only so much behavior that a thing can do to look like a virus in Win98 (which is my understanding of what heuristics is). Okay, maybe we need a bit more here. A large part of the activity now isn't "virus" activity like most people think of where it attacks all your files, crashes your system, you know, that crap -like the old days; its using computers in botnets for various functions like: to drain big bank accounts; DDoS of large corporations; taking and use your accounts for other uses; and other sundry stuff. It doesn't take much from any individual computer since these rely upon massive amounts already hacked - if you've ever P2P/tor/whatever for files, music, movies, or stuff, you should understand the concept of massed computers working together on various things. For instance, in just the last two months, 2 massive hacker networks were taken down, one in China [over 170,000 hackers registered], the other in Spain [Mariposa botnet - reported as having around 12.7 million hacked computers under its control INCLUDING many Fortune 500 companies here in the US]. The "virus" like activity is now NOT static [which defs can be used against] for the most part because its counter-productive to have these discovered, instead constantly changing "hacks" [polymorphic] of whatever THAT computer's function is in the botnet [like just a repeater for control codes, IP to use in DDoS attacks, whatever] is what is occurring more often. Since these are constantly changing, it is extremely hard to detect them, because use of the Internet requires so many things go on JUST when viewing pages or normal usage. Not even UDP packets [like DNS, streaming, etc.] are safe from usage by hackers. You have indicated that there must be some limit to what can be done in a Win9X computer... whereas its mo WHY would you think there would be some limit. The ability to install background hacks into the 9X/ME system was accomplished years ago. IE does allow background hidden instances, and numerous other, were all proofed. One of the MOST vulnerable parts of the NTs IS/was the DOS/CMD/backward compatibility - 32bit-16bit coding - the 17 year old vulnerability; that is basically what Win9X/ME coding is. In those systems, this was used to elevate privileges and install programs, in 9X/ME there are no privileges to overcome, no real user account protections even. CVE-2010-0232 MS10-015 "What is the Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem? The Windows Virtual DOS Machine (NTVDM) subsystem is a protected environment subsystem that emulates MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows within Windows NT-based operating systems. A VDM is created whenever a user starts an MS-DOS application on a Windows NT-based operating system." Why is it so hard to put this aspect, this coding vulnerability/this exploitable aspect, in context with the environments that use it AS the OS, no emulation required. There is no protective overlaying OS which has to be hacked to get at the coding vulnerability, because that IS inherent in and to the OS. This isn't the only issue which revolves around the Intel/32bit-16bit/legacy code aspect. Couple this issue with the IE6 exploits, OE exploits, outdated Flash and JAVA, RealPlayer exploits, FireFox exploits, and, uhh, put some name here and its likely exploitable. The problem is these aren't the hackers of old, like a pimply faced teenage kid writing some virus code and sending up with a nifty new application; these are literally professionals for the most part, they SELL: exploit code; bots; hack kits; use of their botnets or already setup botnets; setup entire servers; sell personal information and account information; and whatever is needed/used/wanted; these have become businesses - criminal organizations for profit. Do they have 9X/ME worms, trojans, and hacks, ah yeah, they've had them for years. Are they the same as the defs know, no unless someone attempts to use one of the old ones; are they the same as might be found by the old style heuristic methods, not likely, they are much more sophisticated; its *profitable* to have as many computers hacked, and hacks/exploits as might be wanted in that consumer market. Which brings us back to my comment that I couldn't say what was going on with these things NOW, because I stopped using and testing Win9X for issues and vulnerabilities about, what, around four months ago. I did however advise of several things PRIOR to ending this last activity with Win9X as my primary OS and Internet connection. I *was* using AVAST with custom settings, and extra protections and applications, and which didn't stop the malicious activity or keep me from becoming severely infected. Of course I went looking for this stuff... Also, don't forget, avast! has other capabilities that might be worth a try -- such as customizing the Standard Shield to block opening, renaming, deleting of files & formatting of drives. I haven't tried it yet because it may make things awkward to do. Looks like, when a thing is blocked, a requestor will be put up whether to allow it -- I really should try! Yeah I tried several custom settings.. I also had mine set to show ALL the activity it was doing. Yep, tried a lot of stuff that last couple years of testing.... Try it out, would useful now. And that "makes things awkward to do" aspect is what causes a large percentage of Windows, IE, Flash, and JAVA exploits to work. In the same light as XP and other users using administrator accounts to access the Internet because its inconvenient to use a protected/limited account, and those who won't get the updates because their OS is pirated or they think Microsoft is "spying on them". -- MEB -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
End Of Support For avast! 4.8 | MEB[_17_] | General | 8 | March 14th 10 05:25 AM |
Avast Pro | Corday[_3_] | General | 43 | December 22nd 09 11:26 AM |
Avast! to Stop Support End of 2009 | dlsayremn | General | 34 | September 23rd 09 12:24 AM |
Avast! to Stop Support End of 2009 | dlsayremn | General | 0 | August 1st 09 04:56 AM |
About Avast! | Angel | General | 11 | October 15th 06 04:01 PM |