<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_0233248</id>
	<title>Test of 16 Anti-Virus Products Says None Rates "Very Good"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257693600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions. The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect. The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system. <a href="http://www.net-security.org/malware\_news.php?id=1137">None of the products performed at a level of 'very good'</a> in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions .
The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities , therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect .
The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system .
None of the products performed at a level of 'very good ' in malware removal or removal of leftovers , based on those 10 samples .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "AV-Comparative recently released the results of a malware removal test in which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions.
The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all the samples used were ones that the tested anti-virus products were able to detect.
The main question was if the products were able to successfully remove malware from an already infected/compromised system.
None of the products performed at a level of 'very good' in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been reading slashdot for a while and I've avoided commenting because... I'm not a nerd.  I'm a geek.  Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day' nerd and geek were the same thing.<br> <br>
I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.<br> <br>
However.  I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process.  They don't want to hear about it being a process.  They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo.  They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out.  The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.<br> <br>
To expand on a car analogy someone else used...<br>
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security.  While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured.  Even if they won't always push the button.  Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.<br> <br>
What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood.  They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out.  They're not reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  They don't see comments about Security being a process and not a product.  They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working.  They're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product(s) available.  They're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed.  They quite simply don't care and don't feel that they should have to care.<br> <br>
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways?  The firewall/software does nothing for them.<br> <br>
And before someone brings up the Linux solution.  I love Linux.  I use it.  It is NOT user friendly though.  With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products.  And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible.  I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.<br> <br>
So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen.  The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure.  The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go.  And that's never going to happen.  Or at least, we hope it doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading slashdot for a while and I 've avoided commenting because... I 'm not a nerd .
I 'm a geek .
Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day ' nerd and geek were the same thing .
I 've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user , I do n't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk .
However. I 've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user does n't care about a process .
They do n't want to hear about it being a process .
They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo .
They just want to be able to power up , do what they want and log out .
The average user these days is n't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do .
To expand on a car analogy someone else used.. . Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security .
While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed , most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured .
Even if they wo n't always push the button .
Unless they 're in an 'unsafe ' neighborhood .
What the average user does n't understand is that every time the get online they 're in an unsafe neighborhood .
They do n't know it and they 're not going to do the research to find out .
They 're not reading / .
They do n't see comments about Security being a process and not a product .
They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working .
They 're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product ( s ) available .
They 're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed .
They quite simply do n't care and do n't feel that they should have to care .
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not , but since it just popped up while they were installing something new , they allow it anyways ?
The firewall/software does nothing for them .
And before someone brings up the Linux solution .
I love Linux .
I use it .
It is NOT user friendly though .
With all the different flavors around , the * cough * average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products .
And if they did pick a Linux distro , they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible .
I 've installed linux on multiple systems ( which previously ran some variation of winblows ) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that did n't have a driver available .
So , to make a long story short ( TOO LATE ) computer security for the average person will never happen .
The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure .
The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites , thus dictating where you can and can not go .
And that 's never going to happen .
Or at least , we hope it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading slashdot for a while and I've avoided commenting because... I'm not a nerd.
I'm a geek.
Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day' nerd and geek were the same thing.
I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.
However.  I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process.
They don't want to hear about it being a process.
They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo.
They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out.
The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.
To expand on a car analogy someone else used...
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security.
While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured.
Even if they won't always push the button.
Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.
What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood.
They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out.
They're not reading /.
They don't see comments about Security being a process and not a product.
They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working.
They're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product(s) available.
They're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed.
They quite simply don't care and don't feel that they should have to care.
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways?
The firewall/software does nothing for them.
And before someone brings up the Linux solution.
I love Linux.
I use it.
It is NOT user friendly though.
With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products.
And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible.
I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.
So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen.
The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure.
The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go.
And that's never going to happen.
Or at least, we hope it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020540</id>
	<title>if putting hdd in other machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>remember to have autorun completely disabled, or it might just infect the other machine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>remember to have autorun completely disabled , or it might just infect the other machine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remember to have autorun completely disabled, or it might just infect the other machine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020518</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Wildclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1257683520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as you're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs,</p></div><p>The real problem is the whole user security model of most operating systems. Any operating system operating on the assumption that the user and the program has the same security level is fatally flawed from a security perspective.</p><p>If you haven't read and understood the source code of a program, then why do you trust it enough to give it the same security privileges as yourself. From a security perspective you shouldn't. A program should never be given more trust than what is needed for it to perform its task. And for most programs that should be precious little.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you 're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs,The real problem is the whole user security model of most operating systems .
Any operating system operating on the assumption that the user and the program has the same security level is fatally flawed from a security perspective.If you have n't read and understood the source code of a program , then why do you trust it enough to give it the same security privileges as yourself .
From a security perspective you should n't .
A program should never be given more trust than what is needed for it to perform its task .
And for most programs that should be precious little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs,The real problem is the whole user security model of most operating systems.
Any operating system operating on the assumption that the user and the program has the same security level is fatally flawed from a security perspective.If you haven't read and understood the source code of a program, then why do you trust it enough to give it the same security privileges as yourself.
From a security perspective you shouldn't.
A program should never be given more trust than what is needed for it to perform its task.
And for most programs that should be precious little.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</id>
	<title>Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop recommending products. The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware. I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products. I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.</p><p>Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop recommending products .
The tests demonstrate that av products do n't perform well .
It is right on .
80 \ % of my day is spent cleaning malware .
I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products .
I 've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations , as you are not helping anyone one bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop recommending products.
The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well.
It is right on.
80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware.
I have written here many times about how you need a combination of products.
I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023962</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>kaoshin</author>
	<datestamp>1257709680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish

Not all businesses are alike.  This can be complicated by many remote support situations and IT groups level of incompetence in developing solutions to accommodate them.  A lot of unskilled hacks also use reimaging as a crutch for their inability to troubleshoot.  Any halfway decent tech can clean up a heavily infected PC using basic troubleshooting and a battery of freely available software in a couple of hours.  This often beats getting on a plane to go onsite, shipping the PC in, figuring out how to migrate a strange undocumented application that was built by some guy who was laid off, reinstalling a ton of non-standard applications and unpackaged apps that have to be updated, license activated and reconfigured.  Yes, I realize there are solutions to address many of these issues, but from my experience it isn't only the users who are stupid and irresponsible.  Anyone can fall under that classification, even mac users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can reimage the machine in less time ; 15 minutes from start to finish Not all businesses are alike .
This can be complicated by many remote support situations and IT groups level of incompetence in developing solutions to accommodate them .
A lot of unskilled hacks also use reimaging as a crutch for their inability to troubleshoot .
Any halfway decent tech can clean up a heavily infected PC using basic troubleshooting and a battery of freely available software in a couple of hours .
This often beats getting on a plane to go onsite , shipping the PC in , figuring out how to migrate a strange undocumented application that was built by some guy who was laid off , reinstalling a ton of non-standard applications and unpackaged apps that have to be updated , license activated and reconfigured .
Yes , I realize there are solutions to address many of these issues , but from my experience it is n't only the users who are stupid and irresponsible .
Anyone can fall under that classification , even mac users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish

Not all businesses are alike.
This can be complicated by many remote support situations and IT groups level of incompetence in developing solutions to accommodate them.
A lot of unskilled hacks also use reimaging as a crutch for their inability to troubleshoot.
Any halfway decent tech can clean up a heavily infected PC using basic troubleshooting and a battery of freely available software in a couple of hours.
This often beats getting on a plane to go onsite, shipping the PC in, figuring out how to migrate a strange undocumented application that was built by some guy who was laid off, reinstalling a ton of non-standard applications and unpackaged apps that have to be updated, license activated and reconfigured.
Yes, I realize there are solutions to address many of these issues, but from my experience it isn't only the users who are stupid and irresponsible.
Anyone can fall under that classification, even mac users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019194</id>
	<title>Expeted Linux fanboy response.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257615240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*whispers*<br>"Shall I?"<br>(whisperwhisper)<br>"Why me??"<br>(whisperwhisper)<br>"Ok, damnit! I'll do it! But you owe me one!"</p><p>*steps forward into the spotlight*</p><p>*loud*<br>"Well, I found a better combination:"<br>*louder*<br>"JUST INSTALL GNU/LINUX!"</p><p>*normal voice*<br>"Thank you, thank you! I will be here..." *dodges flying chair and Granny Smith with bite mark* "... all night!"</p><p>(P.S.: I use Linux as my main Desktop. And Windows for the games. No hard feelings here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* whispers * " Shall I ?
" ( whisperwhisper ) " Why me ? ?
" ( whisperwhisper ) " Ok , damnit !
I 'll do it !
But you owe me one !
" * steps forward into the spotlight * * loud * " Well , I found a better combination : " * louder * " JUST INSTALL GNU/LINUX !
" * normal voice * " Thank you , thank you !
I will be here... " * dodges flying chair and Granny Smith with bite mark * " ... all night ! " ( P.S .
: I use Linux as my main Desktop .
And Windows for the games .
No hard feelings here .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*whispers*"Shall I?
"(whisperwhisper)"Why me??
"(whisperwhisper)"Ok, damnit!
I'll do it!
But you owe me one!
"*steps forward into the spotlight**loud*"Well, I found a better combination:"*louder*"JUST INSTALL GNU/LINUX!
"*normal voice*"Thank you, thank you!
I will be here..." *dodges flying chair and Granny Smith with bite mark* "... all night!"(P.S.
: I use Linux as my main Desktop.
And Windows for the games.
No hard feelings here.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019680</id>
	<title>Most of the anti-virus products performed well.</title>
	<author>Michael G. Kaplan</author>
	<datestamp>1257623280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/removal/avc\_removal\_2009.pdf" title="av-comparatives.org" rel="nofollow">the PDF of the report that the article references</a> [av-comparatives.org] you will see that many of the products were completely successful at identifying and at least neutralizing the tested malware. The reason why none of them rated "very good" is because some of the programs required you to reboot your computer to remove some specific malware programs while for others the use of a boot CD was required.  The report also criticizes when some anti-virus programs leave some non-malicious components behind instead of eliminating 100\% of the program.</p><p>The article gives the impression that the programs are failing to combat the malware, but the criticism is more about the convenience of the malware removal process.  And yeah, I think it is a nice thing to completely remove a piece of malware but the report doesn't explain why it is so tragic if some anti-virus programs sometimes fail to remove some of the non-malicious components of the malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the PDF of the report that the article references [ av-comparatives.org ] you will see that many of the products were completely successful at identifying and at least neutralizing the tested malware .
The reason why none of them rated " very good " is because some of the programs required you to reboot your computer to remove some specific malware programs while for others the use of a boot CD was required .
The report also criticizes when some anti-virus programs leave some non-malicious components behind instead of eliminating 100 \ % of the program.The article gives the impression that the programs are failing to combat the malware , but the criticism is more about the convenience of the malware removal process .
And yeah , I think it is a nice thing to completely remove a piece of malware but the report does n't explain why it is so tragic if some anti-virus programs sometimes fail to remove some of the non-malicious components of the malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the PDF of the report that the article references [av-comparatives.org] you will see that many of the products were completely successful at identifying and at least neutralizing the tested malware.
The reason why none of them rated "very good" is because some of the programs required you to reboot your computer to remove some specific malware programs while for others the use of a boot CD was required.
The report also criticizes when some anti-virus programs leave some non-malicious components behind instead of eliminating 100\% of the program.The article gives the impression that the programs are failing to combat the malware, but the criticism is more about the convenience of the malware removal process.
And yeah, I think it is a nice thing to completely remove a piece of malware but the report doesn't explain why it is so tragic if some anti-virus programs sometimes fail to remove some of the non-malicious components of the malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019248</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All security software sucks. Yes, even your favorite package.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All security software sucks .
Yes , even your favorite package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All security software sucks.
Yes, even your favorite package.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021088</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And before someone brings up the Linux solution.  I love Linux.  I use it.  It is NOT user friendly though.  With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products.  And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible.  I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.</p></div><p>Why do people talk about the average user like they were the target of all computer nerd? I don't see why they should be the target of anyone really.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen.</p></div><p>Who cares? It's really their loss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go.  And that's never going to happen.  Or at least, we hope it doesn't.</p></div><p>I hope it doesn't happen either. That would be awful. Terrible. Unfortunately ISPs don't quite reach out for people who actually know how to operate a computer. It's a shame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And before someone brings up the Linux solution .
I love Linux .
I use it .
It is NOT user friendly though .
With all the different flavors around , the * cough * average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products .
And if they did pick a Linux distro , they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible .
I 've installed linux on multiple systems ( which previously ran some variation of winblows ) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that did n't have a driver available.Why do people talk about the average user like they were the target of all computer nerd ?
I do n't see why they should be the target of anyone really.So , to make a long story short ( TOO LATE ) computer security for the average person will never happen.Who cares ?
It 's really their loss.The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites , thus dictating where you can and can not go .
And that 's never going to happen .
Or at least , we hope it does n't.I hope it does n't happen either .
That would be awful .
Terrible. Unfortunately ISPs do n't quite reach out for people who actually know how to operate a computer .
It 's a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And before someone brings up the Linux solution.
I love Linux.
I use it.
It is NOT user friendly though.
With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products.
And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible.
I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.Why do people talk about the average user like they were the target of all computer nerd?
I don't see why they should be the target of anyone really.So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen.Who cares?
It's really their loss.The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go.
And that's never going to happen.
Or at least, we hope it doesn't.I hope it doesn't happen either.
That would be awful.
Terrible. Unfortunately ISPs don't quite reach out for people who actually know how to operate a computer.
It's a shame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024404</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>Toad-san</author>
	<datestamp>1257713340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too am a big Malwarebytes (MBAM) fan.  At our computer shop it's one of the standards (often the first) that we run when checking and cleaning systems for viruses and malware.</p><p>However Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) has joined the suite since it came out, and it apparently is catching things (real things too) that MBAM (and everything else) is missing.  And doing a good job of realtime protection as well as cleaning, traces and all.</p><p>Panda Antivirus Online continues to be a regular member of the test suite too.  The free online test won't remove anything but the simplest infections.  But it gives full details as to where it found all the other stuff so you can remove it manually.  High Sign to PAV for a Most Excellent product.  Of course now way would I use their resident AV software: way too big, too intrusive, slows down most systems horrifically.  But Panda Online is a good too.</p><p>Norton (any product): worthless.  Ditto with McAfee.  AVG Free isn't bad, but MBAM and MSE are better.  Kaspersky isn't bad, but no free version we'd want to install on customer systems.  Avast isn't bad, but their "free" version nags like crazy, so we don't use it.</p><p>So MSE is installed on user systems, along with MBAM as a "second check" backup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too am a big Malwarebytes ( MBAM ) fan .
At our computer shop it 's one of the standards ( often the first ) that we run when checking and cleaning systems for viruses and malware.However Microsoft Security Essentials ( MSE ) has joined the suite since it came out , and it apparently is catching things ( real things too ) that MBAM ( and everything else ) is missing .
And doing a good job of realtime protection as well as cleaning , traces and all.Panda Antivirus Online continues to be a regular member of the test suite too .
The free online test wo n't remove anything but the simplest infections .
But it gives full details as to where it found all the other stuff so you can remove it manually .
High Sign to PAV for a Most Excellent product .
Of course now way would I use their resident AV software : way too big , too intrusive , slows down most systems horrifically .
But Panda Online is a good too.Norton ( any product ) : worthless .
Ditto with McAfee .
AVG Free is n't bad , but MBAM and MSE are better .
Kaspersky is n't bad , but no free version we 'd want to install on customer systems .
Avast is n't bad , but their " free " version nags like crazy , so we do n't use it.So MSE is installed on user systems , along with MBAM as a " second check " backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too am a big Malwarebytes (MBAM) fan.
At our computer shop it's one of the standards (often the first) that we run when checking and cleaning systems for viruses and malware.However Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) has joined the suite since it came out, and it apparently is catching things (real things too) that MBAM (and everything else) is missing.
And doing a good job of realtime protection as well as cleaning, traces and all.Panda Antivirus Online continues to be a regular member of the test suite too.
The free online test won't remove anything but the simplest infections.
But it gives full details as to where it found all the other stuff so you can remove it manually.
High Sign to PAV for a Most Excellent product.
Of course now way would I use their resident AV software: way too big, too intrusive, slows down most systems horrifically.
But Panda Online is a good too.Norton (any product): worthless.
Ditto with McAfee.
AVG Free isn't bad, but MBAM and MSE are better.
Kaspersky isn't bad, but no free version we'd want to install on customer systems.
Avast isn't bad, but their "free" version nags like crazy, so we don't use it.So MSE is installed on user systems, along with MBAM as a "second check" backup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025654</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>McDutchie</author>
	<datestamp>1257678600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your car analogy breaks for the simple reason that only people with a license are allowed to drive cars. You have to pass both a theory and a practical test to obtain such a license, which constitutes a major investment in effort, time and money. Not caring is not an option. If similar requirements were imposed for letting people on the Internet, we would be having none of these problems.</p><p>And before someone argues that unqualified Internet users don't kill people and are therefore harmless: in fact, the malware their computers inevitably contract and disseminate regularly <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/11/08/2135245/Malware-Can-Download-Child-Porn-To-Your-Computer" title="slashdot.org">ruins lives</a> [slashdot.org] in various ways, either their own or others'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your car analogy breaks for the simple reason that only people with a license are allowed to drive cars .
You have to pass both a theory and a practical test to obtain such a license , which constitutes a major investment in effort , time and money .
Not caring is not an option .
If similar requirements were imposed for letting people on the Internet , we would be having none of these problems.And before someone argues that unqualified Internet users do n't kill people and are therefore harmless : in fact , the malware their computers inevitably contract and disseminate regularly ruins lives [ slashdot.org ] in various ways , either their own or others' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your car analogy breaks for the simple reason that only people with a license are allowed to drive cars.
You have to pass both a theory and a practical test to obtain such a license, which constitutes a major investment in effort, time and money.
Not caring is not an option.
If similar requirements were imposed for letting people on the Internet, we would be having none of these problems.And before someone argues that unqualified Internet users don't kill people and are therefore harmless: in fact, the malware their computers inevitably contract and disseminate regularly ruins lives [slashdot.org] in various ways, either their own or others'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020384</id>
	<title>Many of you missed the point.</title>
	<author>Computershack</author>
	<datestamp>1257681180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of you seem to have missed the point that AV-Comparatives also mentioned, <b>THAT IT WAS PREFERABLE TO LEAVE NON MALICIOUS TRACES BEHIND TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF FURTHER INFECTION.</b> Considering ALL the market leaders chose to leave registry entries and trace files in place, it suggests that leaving them in stops any chance of reinfection at all.<p>Certainly I'd rather have a non-descript file sat there which any malware looks at and decides not to reload than to rely purely on the AV solution to catch it. How many times are we told to use more than one AV solution for on demand scans just to be sure? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of you seem to have missed the point that AV-Comparatives also mentioned , THAT IT WAS PREFERABLE TO LEAVE NON MALICIOUS TRACES BEHIND TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF FURTHER INFECTION .
Considering ALL the market leaders chose to leave registry entries and trace files in place , it suggests that leaving them in stops any chance of reinfection at all.Certainly I 'd rather have a non-descript file sat there which any malware looks at and decides not to reload than to rely purely on the AV solution to catch it .
How many times are we told to use more than one AV solution for on demand scans just to be sure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of you seem to have missed the point that AV-Comparatives also mentioned, THAT IT WAS PREFERABLE TO LEAVE NON MALICIOUS TRACES BEHIND TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF FURTHER INFECTION.
Considering ALL the market leaders chose to leave registry entries and trace files in place, it suggests that leaving them in stops any chance of reinfection at all.Certainly I'd rather have a non-descript file sat there which any malware looks at and decides not to reload than to rely purely on the AV solution to catch it.
How many times are we told to use more than one AV solution for on demand scans just to be sure? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019756</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257711480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow!</p><p>The maker of the OS that knows how it is designed and even has the source code is able to detect strange things that does not belong there. Now - thats what I called an achievement.</p><p>At the other hand the makers of other virus detection software have to guess what is inside the OS, so having a tougher task - and the score not as good.</p><p>You know. I have the strange feeling I am not too surprised. Now why should that be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow ! The maker of the OS that knows how it is designed and even has the source code is able to detect strange things that does not belong there .
Now - thats what I called an achievement.At the other hand the makers of other virus detection software have to guess what is inside the OS , so having a tougher task - and the score not as good.You know .
I have the strange feeling I am not too surprised .
Now why should that be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!The maker of the OS that knows how it is designed and even has the source code is able to detect strange things that does not belong there.
Now - thats what I called an achievement.At the other hand the makers of other virus detection software have to guess what is inside the OS, so having a tougher task - and the score not as good.You know.
I have the strange feeling I am not too surprised.
Now why should that be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019072</id>
	<title>So recalibrate the gradings...</title>
	<author>FlyByPC</author>
	<datestamp>1257613440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, if I were to rate PC speeds as "Very Good" if they exceeded 500 petaflops, none would get that rating. But it's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having, compared to the rest.<br>
<br>
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating, your scale should reflect this. If none of the packages rate "Very Good," it's time to recalibrate the scale, unless there's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest. Unless you're asking for perfection to achieve that rating (which is unrealistic), it doesn't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , if I were to rate PC speeds as " Very Good " if they exceeded 500 petaflops , none would get that rating .
But it 's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having , compared to the rest .
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating , your scale should reflect this .
If none of the packages rate " Very Good , " it 's time to recalibrate the scale , unless there 's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest .
Unless you 're asking for perfection to achieve that rating ( which is unrealistic ) , it does n't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, if I were to rate PC speeds as "Very Good" if they exceeded 500 petaflops, none would get that rating.
But it's still quite possible that the fastest ones out there would be worth having, compared to the rest.
If there are differences in performance in the products you are evaluating, your scale should reflect this.
If none of the packages rate "Very Good," it's time to recalibrate the scale, unless there's a clear natural distinction between that rating and the next-lowest.
Unless you're asking for perfection to achieve that rating (which is unrealistic), it doesn't really mean anything if none of the programs get your top rating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019150</id>
	<title>Isn't that dependent on how you define "very good?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257614580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder who tests if the test itself is "very good"...</p><p>How about you, good sir...</p><p>And you perhaps...?</p><p>^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder who tests if the test itself is " very good " ...How about you , good sir...And you perhaps... ? ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder who tests if the test itself is "very good"...How about you, good sir...And you perhaps...?^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022232</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257699000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not hard. Just pin them to a wall: most non-nerds can do this easily using just one hand. Then use the other hand to hold the flame to the nerd. They'll soon become more cooperative; I once forced a nerd to install WindowsME over his Gentoo installation using this method, so it definitely works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.It 's not hard .
Just pin them to a wall : most non-nerds can do this easily using just one hand .
Then use the other hand to hold the flame to the nerd .
They 'll soon become more cooperative ; I once forced a nerd to install WindowsME over his Gentoo installation using this method , so it definitely works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.It's not hard.
Just pin them to a wall: most non-nerds can do this easily using just one hand.
Then use the other hand to hold the flame to the nerd.
They'll soon become more cooperative; I once forced a nerd to install WindowsME over his Gentoo installation using this method, so it definitely works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020360</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257680700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahaha, you work as an IT janitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahaha , you work as an IT janitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahaha, you work as an IT janitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021760</id>
	<title>Never a test on false positives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257695820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What bothers me greatly with these kind of tests is that they never want to put the finger on the sore spot. Over the past 2 years most of the "major" vendor products have managed to render many Windows systems totally useless because they (falsely) picked up system files as being infected; immediately removed them and left the user with a non-working PC.</p><p>Why do we never get a nice overview of which programs have such an history and which actually try to protect themselves from this?  I think to know; because the common goal here is to make money from the viruses, and as such you can't blame one product over the other because that would be bad for business.</p><p>Personally I think a test like this is laughable when you see that some of the products which score "good" on malware removal also scored "bad" on rendering Windows useless.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bothers me greatly with these kind of tests is that they never want to put the finger on the sore spot .
Over the past 2 years most of the " major " vendor products have managed to render many Windows systems totally useless because they ( falsely ) picked up system files as being infected ; immediately removed them and left the user with a non-working PC.Why do we never get a nice overview of which programs have such an history and which actually try to protect themselves from this ?
I think to know ; because the common goal here is to make money from the viruses , and as such you ca n't blame one product over the other because that would be bad for business.Personally I think a test like this is laughable when you see that some of the products which score " good " on malware removal also scored " bad " on rendering Windows useless.Just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bothers me greatly with these kind of tests is that they never want to put the finger on the sore spot.
Over the past 2 years most of the "major" vendor products have managed to render many Windows systems totally useless because they (falsely) picked up system files as being infected; immediately removed them and left the user with a non-working PC.Why do we never get a nice overview of which programs have such an history and which actually try to protect themselves from this?
I think to know; because the common goal here is to make money from the viruses, and as such you can't blame one product over the other because that would be bad for business.Personally I think a test like this is laughable when you see that some of the products which score "good" on malware removal also scored "bad" on rendering Windows useless.Just my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020224</id>
	<title>The Barn Door</title>
	<author>Brainix</author>
	<datestamp>1257678540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In <i>Modern Operating Systems,</i> Andy Tanenbaum put it best.  I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something like:<blockquote><div><p>Running anti-virus software is akin to locking the barn door <i>after</i> the prize horse has escaped.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Modern Operating Systems , Andy Tanenbaum put it best .
I ca n't remember the exact quote , but it was something like : Running anti-virus software is akin to locking the barn door after the prize horse has escaped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Modern Operating Systems, Andy Tanenbaum put it best.
I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something like:Running anti-virus software is akin to locking the barn door after the prize horse has escaped.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30034190</id>
	<title>Re:Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no cleaning up. For my customers, a format/reload was the only offered solution.</p><p>After explaining why, they thanked me for it.</p><p>(No longer works for self)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no cleaning up .
For my customers , a format/reload was the only offered solution.After explaining why , they thanked me for it .
( No longer works for self )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no cleaning up.
For my customers, a format/reload was the only offered solution.After explaining why, they thanked me for it.
(No longer works for self)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024020</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257710100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To think that anybody on this community knows anything about the average user is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To think that anybody on this community knows anything about the average user is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To think that anybody on this community knows anything about the average user is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30033166</id>
	<title>sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257783660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's just a matter of which false sense of security you prefer.</p><p>I sometimes put in some part time work at a local computer shop and you'd be surprised how many customers say "I don't understand how I got a virus when I update my anti-virus program regularly"</p><p>which is a little like saying "I don't understand how I could catch a cold when I have an immune system"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's just a matter of which false sense of security you prefer.I sometimes put in some part time work at a local computer shop and you 'd be surprised how many customers say " I do n't understand how I got a virus when I update my anti-virus program regularly " which is a little like saying " I do n't understand how I could catch a cold when I have an immune system "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's just a matter of which false sense of security you prefer.I sometimes put in some part time work at a local computer shop and you'd be surprised how many customers say "I don't understand how I got a virus when I update my anti-virus program regularly"which is a little like saying "I don't understand how I could catch a cold when I have an immune system"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020720</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1257686880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things</p></div><p> <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/16/2327246" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/16/2327246</a> [slashdot.org]

I was with you up until the very end. Why ruin a perfectly good comment with overconfidence and arrogance?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a Mac at home and do n't have to worry about such things http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/16/2327246 [ slashdot.org ] I was with you up until the very end .
Why ruin a perfectly good comment with overconfidence and arrogance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/16/2327246 [slashdot.org]

I was with you up until the very end.
Why ruin a perfectly good comment with overconfidence and arrogance?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020154</id>
	<title>Re:Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strongly disagree. If your system can run it, then it can detect is as well. Just like with DRM, if you can play it, you can record it. Even if your malware encrypts itself, there must be a loader program that is not encrypted. Alternate data streams are also accessible offline (there are plentiful of tools for that). Polymorphism of course makes this harder, but this is true for online as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strongly disagree .
If your system can run it , then it can detect is as well .
Just like with DRM , if you can play it , you can record it .
Even if your malware encrypts itself , there must be a loader program that is not encrypted .
Alternate data streams are also accessible offline ( there are plentiful of tools for that ) .
Polymorphism of course makes this harder , but this is true for online as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strongly disagree.
If your system can run it, then it can detect is as well.
Just like with DRM, if you can play it, you can record it.
Even if your malware encrypts itself, there must be a loader program that is not encrypted.
Alternate data streams are also accessible offline (there are plentiful of tools for that).
Polymorphism of course makes this harder, but this is true for online as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019448</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1257619020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ClamAV does nothing automatically, so it wouldnt really qualify for the first part of the test.  If youre suggesting ClamAV to people as a primary antivirus, youre doing it wrong.  Moonsecure would be a different story, but Im not sure how good it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ClamAV does nothing automatically , so it wouldnt really qualify for the first part of the test .
If youre suggesting ClamAV to people as a primary antivirus , youre doing it wrong .
Moonsecure would be a different story , but Im not sure how good it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ClamAV does nothing automatically, so it wouldnt really qualify for the first part of the test.
If youre suggesting ClamAV to people as a primary antivirus, youre doing it wrong.
Moonsecure would be a different story, but Im not sure how good it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019410</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>goga\_russian</author>
	<datestamp>1257618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>where is DrWeb?</htmltext>
<tokenext>where is DrWeb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where is DrWeb?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020734</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1257687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stop recommending products.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.</p></div><p>I think TFA can be read as a reminder that we should not solely depend on one product.  I think it's just a test, nothing more.</p><p>The company I work at uses a mix of various antivirus products  - AVG, Avira, BitDefender, Kaspersky, McAfee, Norton, PC Tools, Trend Micro - trial, paid and free versions.  (The need to uninstall them has caused me many hours of unpaid OT time.)  I researched av-comparatives and toptenreviews, and ended up testing and recommending a product that was on neither list.</p><p>Reading these comparisons have made me realize something:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. The range of products are incomplete, since only X number of brands are represented, and only 1 product from each company is represented.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Some comparisons can be biased, being advertising-supported.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Universities don't have the budget anymore to do and publish antivirus comparisons.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Antivirus protection is just a part of my company's computer security needs.  Others stem from user behavior, data leakage, and so forth.  A holistic implementation is needed.</p><p>I think other readers are smarter than to take these comparative reviews as gospel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop recommending products .
...Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations , as you are not helping anyone one bit.I think TFA can be read as a reminder that we should not solely depend on one product .
I think it 's just a test , nothing more.The company I work at uses a mix of various antivirus products - AVG , Avira , BitDefender , Kaspersky , McAfee , Norton , PC Tools , Trend Micro - trial , paid and free versions .
( The need to uninstall them has caused me many hours of unpaid OT time .
) I researched av-comparatives and toptenreviews , and ended up testing and recommending a product that was on neither list.Reading these comparisons have made me realize something :     1 .
The range of products are incomplete , since only X number of brands are represented , and only 1 product from each company is represented .
    2 .
Some comparisons can be biased , being advertising-supported .
    3 .
Universities do n't have the budget anymore to do and publish antivirus comparisons .
: (     4 .
Antivirus protection is just a part of my company 's computer security needs .
Others stem from user behavior , data leakage , and so forth .
A holistic implementation is needed.I think other readers are smarter than to take these comparative reviews as gospel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop recommending products.
...Until you do this day in and day out please stop with the recommendations, as you are not helping anyone one bit.I think TFA can be read as a reminder that we should not solely depend on one product.
I think it's just a test, nothing more.The company I work at uses a mix of various antivirus products  - AVG, Avira, BitDefender, Kaspersky, McAfee, Norton, PC Tools, Trend Micro - trial, paid and free versions.
(The need to uninstall them has caused me many hours of unpaid OT time.
)  I researched av-comparatives and toptenreviews, and ended up testing and recommending a product that was on neither list.Reading these comparisons have made me realize something:
    1.
The range of products are incomplete, since only X number of brands are represented, and only 1 product from each company is represented.
    2.
Some comparisons can be biased, being advertising-supported.
    3.
Universities don't have the budget anymore to do and publish antivirus comparisons.
:(
    4.
Antivirus protection is just a part of my company's computer security needs.
Others stem from user behavior, data leakage, and so forth.
A holistic implementation is needed.I think other readers are smarter than to take these comparative reviews as gospel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019704</id>
	<title>None Rates "Very Good"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257623580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So use "None"!</p><p>Also, nothing works faster than Anadin.  So you can save some money there too next time you've got a headache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So use " None " ! Also , nothing works faster than Anadin .
So you can save some money there too next time you 've got a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So use "None"!Also, nothing works faster than Anadin.
So you can save some money there too next time you've got a headache.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021062</id>
	<title>Now here's your problem...</title>
	<author>51M02</author>
	<datestamp>1257691260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Furthermore, in some cases it is not possible to know if the registry values (or the hosts file) were modified by the malware or by the user itself (or third-party utilities used by the user).</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know what they mean, my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts files are only modifiable by "root".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Joke aside, what would you expect from a system where configuration files are not protected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , in some cases it is not possible to know if the registry values ( or the hosts file ) were modified by the malware or by the user itself ( or third-party utilities used by the user ) .I do n't know what they mean , my /etc/hosts files are only modifiable by " root " .
: ) Joke aside , what would you expect from a system where configuration files are not protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, in some cases it is not possible to know if the registry values (or the hosts file) were modified by the malware or by the user itself (or third-party utilities used by the user).I don't know what they mean, my /etc/hosts files are only modifiable by "root".
:)Joke aside, what would you expect from a system where configuration files are not protected.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023672</id>
	<title>Trinity</title>
	<author>SomeGuyFromCA</author>
	<datestamp>1257707700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as cleaning up after this crap, I've been relying on Trinity a lot. LiveCD, boots, mounts and scans. <a href="http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12" title="trinityhome.org">http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12</a> [trinityhome.org]</p><p>The only problem is, you need some Linux skills to use it. Last time I applied it, it missed the Windows partition and I had to go in and manually mount it.</p><p>If I were better with rolling Linux LiveCDs, I would add more scanners and set it up to run out of X</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as cleaning up after this crap , I 've been relying on Trinity a lot .
LiveCD , boots , mounts and scans .
http : //trinityhome.org/Home/index.php ? wpid = 1&amp;front \ _id = 12 [ trinityhome.org ] The only problem is , you need some Linux skills to use it .
Last time I applied it , it missed the Windows partition and I had to go in and manually mount it.If I were better with rolling Linux LiveCDs , I would add more scanners and set it up to run out of X</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as cleaning up after this crap, I've been relying on Trinity a lot.
LiveCD, boots, mounts and scans.
http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12 [trinityhome.org]The only problem is, you need some Linux skills to use it.
Last time I applied it, it missed the Windows partition and I had to go in and manually mount it.If I were better with rolling Linux LiveCDs, I would add more scanners and set it up to run out of X</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020640</id>
	<title>documents and user files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imaging is definitely the fastest, but if you have a single partition then you need to worry about documents and any apps or driver/os updates since the image. well updates may require periodically recreating the image, but the real problem is user documents.</p><p>what i do with windows now is treat it like unix. i have a separate system partition and home partition. this way i can reimage windows and not worry about backing up all the other files. although now the user partition needs to be scanned. having a network drive for user files would be a good solution in a business, but for a home user i set the system partition to less than 8 gig. this way i can back it up to a double layer dvd, as well as keep it on the home partition for quick restore. while im at it i usually make a 2gig or so partition for swap space, although people say swap file fragmentation isnt really a problem and sometimes you might want swap at the outside of the drive for transfer rate and sometimes at the inside of the platter for lower seek time, i usually put the swap partition at the start of the drive and go for the lower seek time. hopefully shaves some time off a page fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imaging is definitely the fastest , but if you have a single partition then you need to worry about documents and any apps or driver/os updates since the image .
well updates may require periodically recreating the image , but the real problem is user documents.what i do with windows now is treat it like unix .
i have a separate system partition and home partition .
this way i can reimage windows and not worry about backing up all the other files .
although now the user partition needs to be scanned .
having a network drive for user files would be a good solution in a business , but for a home user i set the system partition to less than 8 gig .
this way i can back it up to a double layer dvd , as well as keep it on the home partition for quick restore .
while im at it i usually make a 2gig or so partition for swap space , although people say swap file fragmentation isnt really a problem and sometimes you might want swap at the outside of the drive for transfer rate and sometimes at the inside of the platter for lower seek time , i usually put the swap partition at the start of the drive and go for the lower seek time .
hopefully shaves some time off a page fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imaging is definitely the fastest, but if you have a single partition then you need to worry about documents and any apps or driver/os updates since the image.
well updates may require periodically recreating the image, but the real problem is user documents.what i do with windows now is treat it like unix.
i have a separate system partition and home partition.
this way i can reimage windows and not worry about backing up all the other files.
although now the user partition needs to be scanned.
having a network drive for user files would be a good solution in a business, but for a home user i set the system partition to less than 8 gig.
this way i can back it up to a double layer dvd, as well as keep it on the home partition for quick restore.
while im at it i usually make a 2gig or so partition for swap space, although people say swap file fragmentation isnt really a problem and sometimes you might want swap at the outside of the drive for transfer rate and sometimes at the inside of the platter for lower seek time, i usually put the swap partition at the start of the drive and go for the lower seek time.
hopefully shaves some time off a page fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019348</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>MojoStan</author>
	<datestamp>1257617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>They tested Anti-virus software for malware</b>
</p><p>
How about testing some malware removal programs? Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?</p></div><p>How should we define "malware?" AV-Comparatives.org <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews" title="av-comparatives.org">chose (for now) <b>not</b> to include</a> [av-comparatives.org] "adware, spyware, dialers, tools and rogue programs" (which they define as "Potentially Unwanted Applications"). They <b>do</b> include viruses, trojans, backdoors, rootkits, exploits, DDoS, flooders, sniffers, and nukers (from their "methodology" pdf file).
</p><p>
Also, their <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/removal-tests" title="av-comparatives.org">"Removal-Test" page</a> [av-comparatives.org] makes it clear that they are testing "Anti-Virus" products. I guess they are using the term "malware" because we expect "anti-virus" products to detect/remove more than just viruses (e.g. trojans, rootkits, etc.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They tested Anti-virus software for malware How about testing some malware removal programs ?
Malwarebytes , Adaware , Spybot ? How should we define " malware ?
" AV-Comparatives.org chose ( for now ) not to include [ av-comparatives.org ] " adware , spyware , dialers , tools and rogue programs " ( which they define as " Potentially Unwanted Applications " ) .
They do include viruses , trojans , backdoors , rootkits , exploits , DDoS , flooders , sniffers , and nukers ( from their " methodology " pdf file ) .
Also , their " Removal-Test " page [ av-comparatives.org ] makes it clear that they are testing " Anti-Virus " products .
I guess they are using the term " malware " because we expect " anti-virus " products to detect/remove more than just viruses ( e.g .
trojans , rootkits , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They tested Anti-virus software for malware

How about testing some malware removal programs?
Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?How should we define "malware?
" AV-Comparatives.org chose (for now) not to include [av-comparatives.org] "adware, spyware, dialers, tools and rogue programs" (which they define as "Potentially Unwanted Applications").
They do include viruses, trojans, backdoors, rootkits, exploits, DDoS, flooders, sniffers, and nukers (from their "methodology" pdf file).
Also, their "Removal-Test" page [av-comparatives.org] makes it clear that they are testing "Anti-Virus" products.
I guess they are using the term "malware" because we expect "anti-virus" products to detect/remove more than just viruses (e.g.
trojans, rootkits, etc.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30044964</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Epi-man</author>
	<datestamp>1257865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>stick with Macrohard products</p></div></blockquote><p>You just made my day.  That's my preferred nickname for the Redmond giant, but I seem to be the only one to use it in my circles.</p><p>(perhaps the most inane post I have ever made on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>stick with Macrohard productsYou just made my day .
That 's my preferred nickname for the Redmond giant , but I seem to be the only one to use it in my circles .
( perhaps the most inane post I have ever made on / .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stick with Macrohard productsYou just made my day.
That's my preferred nickname for the Redmond giant, but I seem to be the only one to use it in my circles.
(perhaps the most inane post I have ever made on /.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020416</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257681780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things).</b></p><p>Yet....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( I use a Mac at home and do n't have to worry about such things ) .Yet... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things).Yet....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019128</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1257614280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my recommendation: go hog wild, people!  I love your money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my recommendation : go hog wild , people !
I love your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my recommendation: go hog wild, people!
I love your money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022528</id>
	<title>Test of 16 Anti virus test says None Very Good</title>
	<author>arnoldlawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1257700920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is good news... <a href="http://www.cypress.com/" title="cypress.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cypress.com/</a> [cypress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is good news... http : //www.cypress.com/ [ cypress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is good news... http://www.cypress.com/ [cypress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020352</id>
	<title>Methodology unexplained</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1257680520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said WHERE they got the samples and how they picked them. But do you think most users get infected by dropping an individual malware sample on their machine and executing it? They probably get a huge load at a time from an installer that claims to be something else and anti-virus, if present, would have a stab at detecting system changes at that point, or maybe even when the file was downloaded...</p><p>
Obviously a destructive rootkit could change any number of things about your system that COULD be impossible to restore. This isn't a shortcoming of a security product but a factor of being able to perform actions as an administrator, something the system must have SOME way for you to do, and therefore can be abused. Granted, some systems will be tighter about this than others, and there's a trade-off in usability, etc. But that is for the OS designer, not the AV provider.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said WHERE they got the samples and how they picked them .
But do you think most users get infected by dropping an individual malware sample on their machine and executing it ?
They probably get a huge load at a time from an installer that claims to be something else and anti-virus , if present , would have a stab at detecting system changes at that point , or maybe even when the file was downloaded.. . Obviously a destructive rootkit could change any number of things about your system that COULD be impossible to restore .
This is n't a shortcoming of a security product but a factor of being able to perform actions as an administrator , something the system must have SOME way for you to do , and therefore can be abused .
Granted , some systems will be tighter about this than others , and there 's a trade-off in usability , etc .
But that is for the OS designer , not the AV provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said WHERE they got the samples and how they picked them.
But do you think most users get infected by dropping an individual malware sample on their machine and executing it?
They probably get a huge load at a time from an installer that claims to be something else and anti-virus, if present, would have a stab at detecting system changes at that point, or maybe even when the file was downloaded...
Obviously a destructive rootkit could change any number of things about your system that COULD be impossible to restore.
This isn't a shortcoming of a security product but a factor of being able to perform actions as an administrator, something the system must have SOME way for you to do, and therefore can be abused.
Granted, some systems will be tighter about this than others, and there's a trade-off in usability, etc.
But that is for the OS designer, not the AV provider.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019544</id>
	<title>Kinda pointless</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257620580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The primary purpose of an antivirus is to keep you from getting infected in the first place.  Cleaning up an existing infection is secondary and, in a growing number of cases, impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary purpose of an antivirus is to keep you from getting infected in the first place .
Cleaning up an existing infection is secondary and , in a growing number of cases , impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary purpose of an antivirus is to keep you from getting infected in the first place.
Cleaning up an existing infection is secondary and, in a growing number of cases, impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020844</id>
	<title>Re:No Joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system, maybe did a little damage or had a little fun. Sometimes it was pretty funny. Such as screwing with the mouse."</p><p>Ya, there's nothing funnier than when someone you don't know, takes your computer out for a good time, gets it drunk, and returns it to you by wheeling it home in a shopping cart and leaving it on your doorstep, ringing the doorbell and running off. Fun times!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system , maybe did a little damage or had a little fun .
Sometimes it was pretty funny .
Such as screwing with the mouse .
" Ya , there 's nothing funnier than when someone you do n't know , takes your computer out for a good time , gets it drunk , and returns it to you by wheeling it home in a shopping cart and leaving it on your doorstep , ringing the doorbell and running off .
Fun times !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system, maybe did a little damage or had a little fun.
Sometimes it was pretty funny.
Such as screwing with the mouse.
"Ya, there's nothing funnier than when someone you don't know, takes your computer out for a good time, gets it drunk, and returns it to you by wheeling it home in a shopping cart and leaving it on your doorstep, ringing the doorbell and running off.
Fun times!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019604</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257621780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed...</p><p>They should have instead tested:</p><ol>
<li>SUPERAntispyware</li><li>PC Tools Spyware Doctor</li><li>Malwarebytes Anti-Malware</li><li>PrevX CSI</li><li>Webroot Antispyware with AV and Firewall</li><li>Spy Sweeper</li><li>ThreatFire 4.5</li><li>Vipre Antispyware 3.1 </li><li>CA Pestpatrol</li><li>CounterSpy</li><li>Trend Micro Security</li><li>Tenebril SpyCatcher</li><li>LavaSoft AdAware Pro 8.1</li><li>McAfee Anti-Spyware</li><li>Panda Internet Security</li><li>AVG Anti-<b>spyware</b> (not anti-virus)</li><li>Ashampoo Antispyware</li></ol><p>
And then maybe considered testing some of the lesser-known or that I believe to be outdated and/or  quite ineffective:
</p><ul>
<li>Spybot Search and Destroy</li><li>Crawler Spyware Terminator</li><li>SPAMFighter Spyware Fighter</li><li>Spyware X-Terminator</li><li>Xblock X-cleaner</li><li>Cyberdefender</li><li>Spyware Terminator</li><li>StopZilla</li><li>SpyEraser</li><li>GarbageClean</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed...They should have instead tested : SUPERAntispywarePC Tools Spyware DoctorMalwarebytes Anti-MalwarePrevX CSIWebroot Antispyware with AV and FirewallSpy SweeperThreatFire 4.5Vipre Antispyware 3.1 CA PestpatrolCounterSpyTrend Micro SecurityTenebril SpyCatcherLavaSoft AdAware Pro 8.1McAfee Anti-SpywarePanda Internet SecurityAVG Anti-spyware ( not anti-virus ) Ashampoo Antispyware And then maybe considered testing some of the lesser-known or that I believe to be outdated and/or quite ineffective : Spybot Search and DestroyCrawler Spyware TerminatorSPAMFighter Spyware FighterSpyware X-TerminatorXblock X-cleanerCyberdefenderSpyware TerminatorStopZillaSpyEraserGarbageClean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed...They should have instead tested:
SUPERAntispywarePC Tools Spyware DoctorMalwarebytes Anti-MalwarePrevX CSIWebroot Antispyware with AV and FirewallSpy SweeperThreatFire 4.5Vipre Antispyware 3.1 CA PestpatrolCounterSpyTrend Micro SecurityTenebril SpyCatcherLavaSoft AdAware Pro 8.1McAfee Anti-SpywarePanda Internet SecurityAVG Anti-spyware (not anti-virus)Ashampoo Antispyware
And then maybe considered testing some of the lesser-known or that I believe to be outdated and/or  quite ineffective:

Spybot Search and DestroyCrawler Spyware TerminatorSPAMFighter Spyware FighterSpyware X-TerminatorXblock X-cleanerCyberdefenderSpyware TerminatorStopZillaSpyEraserGarbageClean</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024574</id>
	<title>Linux is the best antivirus, although...</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1257671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in a research lab and as such almost everybody uses linux. We (rightfully) feel that viruses are something that can't happen to us, but a few weeks ago I sent the following message on the work mailing list to test user gullibility:
<p>
If you type the following smiley in a shell, you get some interesting results:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(){<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:;:; };:
</p><p>
I'm happy to report that the experiment worked. I don't know towards what, but it worked...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a research lab and as such almost everybody uses linux .
We ( rightfully ) feel that viruses are something that ca n't happen to us , but a few weeks ago I sent the following message on the work mailing list to test user gullibility : If you type the following smiley in a shell , you get some interesting results : : ( ) { : ; : ; } ; : I 'm happy to report that the experiment worked .
I do n't know towards what , but it worked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a research lab and as such almost everybody uses linux.
We (rightfully) feel that viruses are something that can't happen to us, but a few weeks ago I sent the following message on the work mailing list to test user gullibility:

If you type the following smiley in a shell, you get some interesting results: :(){ :;:; };:

I'm happy to report that the experiment worked.
I don't know towards what, but it worked...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025222</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>GeorgeS</author>
	<datestamp>1257675660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Slashdot!<br>Good post...wish I still had some mod points left</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Slashdot ! Good post...wish I still had some mod points left</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Slashdot!Good post...wish I still had some mod points left</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029370</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>templar112</author>
	<datestamp>1257708360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Malwarebytes all the way. It has fixed many a thing for me without having to reinstall Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malwarebytes all the way .
It has fixed many a thing for me without having to reinstall Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malwarebytes all the way.
It has fixed many a thing for me without having to reinstall Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024096</id>
	<title>Re:The usual suspects</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1257710880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pointless distinction, when you consider that people pay for McAfee, Avast, etc. and expect it to protect them (user-ambiguous distinctions between "virus", "trojan" and "malware" aside) from harmful software.</p><p>MalwareBytes is useful as a clean-up tool, but only (IMO) as a detection tool telling you that you need to reinstall/reimage, or in a home client computer repair scenario. Once you're infected, you're infected; I've found there's really no going back to a clean, well-performing system after that happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pointless distinction , when you consider that people pay for McAfee , Avast , etc .
and expect it to protect them ( user-ambiguous distinctions between " virus " , " trojan " and " malware " aside ) from harmful software.MalwareBytes is useful as a clean-up tool , but only ( IMO ) as a detection tool telling you that you need to reinstall/reimage , or in a home client computer repair scenario .
Once you 're infected , you 're infected ; I 've found there 's really no going back to a clean , well-performing system after that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pointless distinction, when you consider that people pay for McAfee, Avast, etc.
and expect it to protect them (user-ambiguous distinctions between "virus", "trojan" and "malware" aside) from harmful software.MalwareBytes is useful as a clean-up tool, but only (IMO) as a detection tool telling you that you need to reinstall/reimage, or in a home client computer repair scenario.
Once you're infected, you're infected; I've found there's really no going back to a clean, well-performing system after that happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024036</id>
	<title>Interesting results</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1257710280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The results are interesting, in that they show MS Security Essentials - which is free and new to the market - performing essentially as well as the Symantec AV, and better than everything else. That's somewhat surprising, given the geek preference for NOD32/F-Secure/etc. over Semantec and MS products.</p><p>I think I'll just keep recommending MS Security Essentials to my clients over Symantec or McAfee, though. Those products are junk and aren't worth the system overhead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The results are interesting , in that they show MS Security Essentials - which is free and new to the market - performing essentially as well as the Symantec AV , and better than everything else .
That 's somewhat surprising , given the geek preference for NOD32/F-Secure/etc .
over Semantec and MS products.I think I 'll just keep recommending MS Security Essentials to my clients over Symantec or McAfee , though .
Those products are junk and are n't worth the system overhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results are interesting, in that they show MS Security Essentials - which is free and new to the market - performing essentially as well as the Symantec AV, and better than everything else.
That's somewhat surprising, given the geek preference for NOD32/F-Secure/etc.
over Semantec and MS products.I think I'll just keep recommending MS Security Essentials to my clients over Symantec or McAfee, though.
Those products are junk and aren't worth the system overhead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019922</id>
	<title>New approach</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1257672000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say if we can't win the software battle, set up alternative defenses.<br>
Emails should have a captcha (enter text above please) before you can send an email. Yes, this is a global pissoff, but spam is too, and this would do something about spam mail. All of those spam bots would be out of a job.<br>
Kids should be educated about viruses, and not to click that golden "buy full version to fix virus" button. Sure, many people still will, but educating people on not buying into the tricks would help.<br>
If we take away how malware developers can profit, that is doing a lot in the direction of fixing this problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say if we ca n't win the software battle , set up alternative defenses .
Emails should have a captcha ( enter text above please ) before you can send an email .
Yes , this is a global pissoff , but spam is too , and this would do something about spam mail .
All of those spam bots would be out of a job .
Kids should be educated about viruses , and not to click that golden " buy full version to fix virus " button .
Sure , many people still will , but educating people on not buying into the tricks would help .
If we take away how malware developers can profit , that is doing a lot in the direction of fixing this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say if we can't win the software battle, set up alternative defenses.
Emails should have a captcha (enter text above please) before you can send an email.
Yes, this is a global pissoff, but spam is too, and this would do something about spam mail.
All of those spam bots would be out of a job.
Kids should be educated about viruses, and not to click that golden "buy full version to fix virus" button.
Sure, many people still will, but educating people on not buying into the tricks would help.
If we take away how malware developers can profit, that is doing a lot in the direction of fixing this problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023638</id>
	<title>Re:Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257707340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what you should do is make md5 sums of all system files (and repeat that after each update), then compare them offline.<br>autoruns can make a list of startup utils. store that after clean install so you can later compare it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what you should do is make md5 sums of all system files ( and repeat that after each update ) , then compare them offline.autoruns can make a list of startup utils .
store that after clean install so you can later compare it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what you should do is make md5 sums of all system files (and repeat that after each update), then compare them offline.autoruns can make a list of startup utils.
store that after clean install so you can later compare it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019082</id>
	<title>Leftovers = malicious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257613560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If AV software kept track of every malware component (non-malicious) the detection engine size would grow by a massive amount and people would then complain about performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If AV software kept track of every malware component ( non-malicious ) the detection engine size would grow by a massive amount and people would then complain about performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AV software kept track of every malware component (non-malicious) the detection engine size would grow by a massive amount and people would then complain about performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019222</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it interesting though that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the top three AV tested, with two "good" ratings. It also happens to be free. Maybe Microsoft is learning lessons from the past?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting though that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the top three AV tested , with two " good " ratings .
It also happens to be free .
Maybe Microsoft is learning lessons from the past ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting though that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the top three AV tested, with two "good" ratings.
It also happens to be free.
Maybe Microsoft is learning lessons from the past?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020764</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1257687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes.</p></div><p>You are very lucky.</p><p>I am not allowed to format the machines.  I have to remove viruses the hard way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when something goes wrong with a computer ( drive crash , corrupt registry , malware , whatever ) they are back online in 15 minutes.You are very lucky.I am not allowed to format the machines .
I have to remove viruses the hard way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes.You are very lucky.I am not allowed to format the machines.
I have to remove viruses the hard way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30028612</id>
	<title>MickeySer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257700140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see Panda Security products tested to see if they are still good at completely removing malware they could find. Panda Security products are not famous for detecting everything or for being very reliable, but one thing I notice in past is that if they detected, they would be very efficient in removing it from the system... something that at that time other products like symantec, avira (and others) simply wouldn't do (or do it badly). But with this thing of collective intelligence and others technologies I wonder if it got worst or is as good as in past was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see Panda Security products tested to see if they are still good at completely removing malware they could find .
Panda Security products are not famous for detecting everything or for being very reliable , but one thing I notice in past is that if they detected , they would be very efficient in removing it from the system... something that at that time other products like symantec , avira ( and others ) simply would n't do ( or do it badly ) .
But with this thing of collective intelligence and others technologies I wonder if it got worst or is as good as in past was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see Panda Security products tested to see if they are still good at completely removing malware they could find.
Panda Security products are not famous for detecting everything or for being very reliable, but one thing I notice in past is that if they detected, they would be very efficient in removing it from the system... something that at that time other products like symantec, avira (and others) simply wouldn't do (or do it badly).
But with this thing of collective intelligence and others technologies I wonder if it got worst or is as good as in past was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020338</id>
	<title>Do we need anti-virus software?</title>
	<author>ivanwyc</author>
	<datestamp>1257680400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knowing how to use the computer properly is far more efficient than installing any of those anti-virus softwares. Those of my friends who care about anti-virus are the ones whose computers often get infected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing how to use the computer properly is far more efficient than installing any of those anti-virus softwares .
Those of my friends who care about anti-virus are the ones whose computers often get infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing how to use the computer properly is far more efficient than installing any of those anti-virus softwares.
Those of my friends who care about anti-virus are the ones whose computers often get infected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020150</id>
	<title>It's a bit like the saying about drugs</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1257677400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If they would really cure you, the drug companies would run out of business"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If they would really cure you , the drug companies would run out of business "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If they would really cure you, the drug companies would run out of business"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018858</id>
	<title>I use Microsoft anti-virus and love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BuY H3rB@l V1agaRa t0Day!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BuY H3rB @ l V1agaRa t0Day ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BuY H3rB@l V1agaRa t0Day!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024700</id>
	<title>Re:Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Velex</author>
	<datestamp>1257672120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams, utilize virtualization, employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can *only* be reliably detected if they are actually *running* because they conceal themselves using these techniques. *Even then*, it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself.</p></div><p>
Uhm, excuse me, call me ignorant, but when the system is powered off it's all bits on the drive.  As another commentor replied to you, there has to be an unencrypted bootloader or loading program somewhere.  This isn't magick.  This is mathematics.  It's very, very complicated mathematics, but it's still a machine.  We like to anthropomorphize viruses like some bad episode of Reboot, but the computer is a machine that does what's it's told to do.
</p><p>
Attempting to clean a machine while it's operational is completely stupid, but maybe not as stupid as the virus-writer who writes a virus that can be cleaned while the system is operational.  That's probably your only saving grace.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As a result, some of these viruses don't show up in Safe Mode either...</p></div><p>
It's called a rootkit.  If I modify core utilities like Task Manager to show you what I want you to see, why would safe mode make a difference?  Whatever, it's all the Matrix.  We've got programs running all over the place.  It's completely unpredictable!  Let's just anthropomorphize it until we forget it's numbers.  Does that make you feel like a warrior?  Is it all so much more exciting when we look at it like a round of D&amp;D instead of math?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams , utilize virtualization , employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can * only * be reliably detected if they are actually * running * because they conceal themselves using these techniques .
* Even then * , it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself .
Uhm , excuse me , call me ignorant , but when the system is powered off it 's all bits on the drive .
As another commentor replied to you , there has to be an unencrypted bootloader or loading program somewhere .
This is n't magick .
This is mathematics .
It 's very , very complicated mathematics , but it 's still a machine .
We like to anthropomorphize viruses like some bad episode of Reboot , but the computer is a machine that does what 's it 's told to do .
Attempting to clean a machine while it 's operational is completely stupid , but maybe not as stupid as the virus-writer who writes a virus that can be cleaned while the system is operational .
That 's probably your only saving grace .
As a result , some of these viruses do n't show up in Safe Mode either.. . It 's called a rootkit .
If I modify core utilities like Task Manager to show you what I want you to see , why would safe mode make a difference ?
Whatever , it 's all the Matrix .
We 've got programs running all over the place .
It 's completely unpredictable !
Let 's just anthropomorphize it until we forget it 's numbers .
Does that make you feel like a warrior ?
Is it all so much more exciting when we look at it like a round of D&amp;D instead of math ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams, utilize virtualization, employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can *only* be reliably detected if they are actually *running* because they conceal themselves using these techniques.
*Even then*, it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself.
Uhm, excuse me, call me ignorant, but when the system is powered off it's all bits on the drive.
As another commentor replied to you, there has to be an unencrypted bootloader or loading program somewhere.
This isn't magick.
This is mathematics.
It's very, very complicated mathematics, but it's still a machine.
We like to anthropomorphize viruses like some bad episode of Reboot, but the computer is a machine that does what's it's told to do.
Attempting to clean a machine while it's operational is completely stupid, but maybe not as stupid as the virus-writer who writes a virus that can be cleaned while the system is operational.
That's probably your only saving grace.
As a result, some of these viruses don't show up in Safe Mode either...
It's called a rootkit.
If I modify core utilities like Task Manager to show you what I want you to see, why would safe mode make a difference?
Whatever, it's all the Matrix.
We've got programs running all over the place.
It's completely unpredictable!
Let's just anthropomorphize it until we forget it's numbers.
Does that make you feel like a warrior?
Is it all so much more exciting when we look at it like a round of D&amp;D instead of math?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020852</id>
	<title>Did they test Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they test Ubuntu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they test Ubuntu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they test Ubuntu?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019530</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257620340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware.</p></div><p>You need a new job.  Unless you enjoy what you're doing, in which case Good For You.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>80 \ % of my day is spent cleaning malware.You need a new job .
Unless you enjoy what you 're doing , in which case Good For You .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware.You need a new job.
Unless you enjoy what you're doing, in which case Good For You.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020684</id>
	<title>There is only one good antivirus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Common sense. Use it, it doesn't hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Common sense .
Use it , it does n't hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common sense.
Use it, it doesn't hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019054</id>
	<title>The usual suspects</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1257613080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, half of the software they tested is not anti-Malware software (Avast, for example, is an AV, not an Anti-Malware).</p><p>They also did not test MalwareBytes, probably because it would make all of the others look bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , half of the software they tested is not anti-Malware software ( Avast , for example , is an AV , not an Anti-Malware ) .They also did not test MalwareBytes , probably because it would make all of the others look bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, half of the software they tested is not anti-Malware software (Avast, for example, is an AV, not an Anti-Malware).They also did not test MalwareBytes, probably because it would make all of the others look bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021414</id>
	<title>"very bad"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is more like it. I have been burnt by more then one commercial product lately.</p><p>But of course, if they fail, they aren't liable in the least. its a lot like tossing money out the window for insurance that wont do anything when you have a accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is more like it .
I have been burnt by more then one commercial product lately.But of course , if they fail , they are n't liable in the least .
its a lot like tossing money out the window for insurance that wont do anything when you have a accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is more like it.
I have been burnt by more then one commercial product lately.But of course, if they fail, they aren't liable in the least.
its a lot like tossing money out the window for insurance that wont do anything when you have a accident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30030432</id>
	<title>ughhh</title>
	<author>ajhtiredwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257763500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, so many of you are missing such an important point. You're not worried about viruses because you can just reimage/reformat? Ok so what about a virus that steals your credit card information while entering it into a site? Once you do a format, that's not really going to help you is it?They already have your information.  and if you do need to wipe  and reformat, what if windows say "nuh-uh you have reached the maximum reinstalls" or that person does't have their windows cd anymore? I would say about 99\% percent of the machines that are brought to me ( whether it be for an upgrade, a driver problem, whatever) that are running windows, have some sort of infecting software on them. I used to recommend that people use linux, but I don't don't do that anymore, after so many "why can't I use such and such device" questions you realize that if there is even one program the user uses that windows can run, which linux can't ( even if there is an alternative) they aren't happpy with their new OS. So im basically stuck letting them use windows, and I see all kinds of antivirus software, which does very very little, but with so many competing companies in makes me think that it really just isn't possible to secure and protect windows. I can't imagine how hard it would be to write a piece of software that protected a linux distro that always ran in root with full privledges. I think the only answer to a secure windows os is..... a secure windows OS, made by Microsoft. Maybe this new google-os will have good security, catch on and microsoft will have a reason to make their OS secure.

Oh and to all of the, "its the users fault, they or as smartnessers as us!!! durrr!" Alright look, not everyone out there sits around poking and proding their computer like we do. It is our hobby, do you do stupid shit with your car, house, custom-remodeling job? Yes, because that isn't what interest you and you don't spend allot of time messing with it. This doesn't mean that you are smarter than everyone else as much as you wish that were true.

--
-AJH</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so many of you are missing such an important point .
You 're not worried about viruses because you can just reimage/reformat ?
Ok so what about a virus that steals your credit card information while entering it into a site ?
Once you do a format , that 's not really going to help you is it ? They already have your information .
and if you do need to wipe and reformat , what if windows say " nuh-uh you have reached the maximum reinstalls " or that person does't have their windows cd anymore ?
I would say about 99 \ % percent of the machines that are brought to me ( whether it be for an upgrade , a driver problem , whatever ) that are running windows , have some sort of infecting software on them .
I used to recommend that people use linux , but I do n't do n't do that anymore , after so many " why ca n't I use such and such device " questions you realize that if there is even one program the user uses that windows can run , which linux ca n't ( even if there is an alternative ) they are n't happpy with their new OS .
So im basically stuck letting them use windows , and I see all kinds of antivirus software , which does very very little , but with so many competing companies in makes me think that it really just is n't possible to secure and protect windows .
I ca n't imagine how hard it would be to write a piece of software that protected a linux distro that always ran in root with full privledges .
I think the only answer to a secure windows os is..... a secure windows OS , made by Microsoft .
Maybe this new google-os will have good security , catch on and microsoft will have a reason to make their OS secure .
Oh and to all of the , " its the users fault , they or as smartnessers as us ! ! !
durrr ! " Alright look , not everyone out there sits around poking and proding their computer like we do .
It is our hobby , do you do stupid shit with your car , house , custom-remodeling job ?
Yes , because that is n't what interest you and you do n't spend allot of time messing with it .
This does n't mean that you are smarter than everyone else as much as you wish that were true .
-- -AJH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so many of you are missing such an important point.
You're not worried about viruses because you can just reimage/reformat?
Ok so what about a virus that steals your credit card information while entering it into a site?
Once you do a format, that's not really going to help you is it?They already have your information.
and if you do need to wipe  and reformat, what if windows say "nuh-uh you have reached the maximum reinstalls" or that person does't have their windows cd anymore?
I would say about 99\% percent of the machines that are brought to me ( whether it be for an upgrade, a driver problem, whatever) that are running windows, have some sort of infecting software on them.
I used to recommend that people use linux, but I don't don't do that anymore, after so many "why can't I use such and such device" questions you realize that if there is even one program the user uses that windows can run, which linux can't ( even if there is an alternative) they aren't happpy with their new OS.
So im basically stuck letting them use windows, and I see all kinds of antivirus software, which does very very little, but with so many competing companies in makes me think that it really just isn't possible to secure and protect windows.
I can't imagine how hard it would be to write a piece of software that protected a linux distro that always ran in root with full privledges.
I think the only answer to a secure windows os is..... a secure windows OS, made by Microsoft.
Maybe this new google-os will have good security, catch on and microsoft will have a reason to make their OS secure.
Oh and to all of the, "its the users fault, they or as smartnessers as us!!!
durrr!" Alright look, not everyone out there sits around poking and proding their computer like we do.
It is our hobby, do you do stupid shit with your car, house, custom-remodeling job?
Yes, because that isn't what interest you and you don't spend allot of time messing with it.
This doesn't mean that you are smarter than everyone else as much as you wish that were true.
--
-AJH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019322</id>
	<title>Re:No Joke</title>
	<author>Myrcutio</author>
	<datestamp>1257617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually i've been making a fair amount of money off of those fake AV programs lately too.  I think it's called Total Security or Cyber Security or something like that, insinuates itself in the AV section of the action center.  After the first couple systems i got pretty quick about removing it, only took me 15 minutes for the last system i cleaned.  Just kill the active process, delete the CS folder from program files, remove the browser helper object and set avast to a thorough scan of all archives.  Incidentally, ALL the systems i've cleaned to date have had norton 2010 installed.  Lately i've taken to recommending that any customers with norton just remove it regardless of existing subscriptions and install Avast.  Haven't had a single complaint yet about the viruses resurfacing in the cases that took my advice.<br> <br>

makes it somewhat suspicious that TFA claimed that Norton was one of the best rated malware programs out there, and that Avast was hardly average.  Sounds highly questionable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually i 've been making a fair amount of money off of those fake AV programs lately too .
I think it 's called Total Security or Cyber Security or something like that , insinuates itself in the AV section of the action center .
After the first couple systems i got pretty quick about removing it , only took me 15 minutes for the last system i cleaned .
Just kill the active process , delete the CS folder from program files , remove the browser helper object and set avast to a thorough scan of all archives .
Incidentally , ALL the systems i 've cleaned to date have had norton 2010 installed .
Lately i 've taken to recommending that any customers with norton just remove it regardless of existing subscriptions and install Avast .
Have n't had a single complaint yet about the viruses resurfacing in the cases that took my advice .
makes it somewhat suspicious that TFA claimed that Norton was one of the best rated malware programs out there , and that Avast was hardly average .
Sounds highly questionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually i've been making a fair amount of money off of those fake AV programs lately too.
I think it's called Total Security or Cyber Security or something like that, insinuates itself in the AV section of the action center.
After the first couple systems i got pretty quick about removing it, only took me 15 minutes for the last system i cleaned.
Just kill the active process, delete the CS folder from program files, remove the browser helper object and set avast to a thorough scan of all archives.
Incidentally, ALL the systems i've cleaned to date have had norton 2010 installed.
Lately i've taken to recommending that any customers with norton just remove it regardless of existing subscriptions and install Avast.
Haven't had a single complaint yet about the viruses resurfacing in the cases that took my advice.
makes it somewhat suspicious that TFA claimed that Norton was one of the best rated malware programs out there, and that Avast was hardly average.
Sounds highly questionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019068</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>engun</author>
	<datestamp>1257613380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. This is why I don't use any AV product at all. As long as you're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs, there's no way to justify incurring a huge performance hit on a daily basis. For example, I once "fixed" a friend's PC in which she had installed two AV programs - Avira and McAfee - for additional protection and security as I heard. File copying had dropped to something like 150Kb/sec between two hard drives because both anti-viruses were scanning it. Disabling one increased the speed to about 1.5Mb/Sec. Disabling both improved it to about 6Mb/Sec (figures according to rough recollection, to be taken with a pinch of salt). I eventually left one on since she wasn't an experienced user and needed some anti-virus program, "just-in-case".
<br> <br>
But experiences like these over the years have convinced me that the wisdom about adjusting your process is far more valid than having an army of products. I haven't had a single virus infection for as long as I can recall and if I did, that was because I'd been careless and run some program off the net without finding out what it was. Also, I don't think AV programs offer any meaningful protection against things like browser flaws. If someone decides to exploit say a buffer overflow vulnerability in your browser and you simultaneously decide to browse to that very site which does so, well, so sad, too bad. Might as well wait for the browser vendor to release a patch which fixes that flaw and use a more secure browser like Chrome to browse dodgy sites, rather than pray an ineffective AV magically detects it with its "heuristics". Most often, all that DLL injection and the like result in an unstable browser, rather than providing any real protection.
<br> <br>
Having said all that, I do see the utility in being able to do an occasional on-demand scan on an executable. I also see why AV vendors are going for the nanny philosophy to deal with the armies of inexperienced users who have no idea about the "process" behind security. But for those with a reasonable idea of it, it's probably better to suffer the rare virus infection than endure a crawling system on a daily basis thanks to some overzealous AV product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This is why I do n't use any AV product at all .
As long as you 're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs , there 's no way to justify incurring a huge performance hit on a daily basis .
For example , I once " fixed " a friend 's PC in which she had installed two AV programs - Avira and McAfee - for additional protection and security as I heard .
File copying had dropped to something like 150Kb/sec between two hard drives because both anti-viruses were scanning it .
Disabling one increased the speed to about 1.5Mb/Sec .
Disabling both improved it to about 6Mb/Sec ( figures according to rough recollection , to be taken with a pinch of salt ) .
I eventually left one on since she was n't an experienced user and needed some anti-virus program , " just-in-case " .
But experiences like these over the years have convinced me that the wisdom about adjusting your process is far more valid than having an army of products .
I have n't had a single virus infection for as long as I can recall and if I did , that was because I 'd been careless and run some program off the net without finding out what it was .
Also , I do n't think AV programs offer any meaningful protection against things like browser flaws .
If someone decides to exploit say a buffer overflow vulnerability in your browser and you simultaneously decide to browse to that very site which does so , well , so sad , too bad .
Might as well wait for the browser vendor to release a patch which fixes that flaw and use a more secure browser like Chrome to browse dodgy sites , rather than pray an ineffective AV magically detects it with its " heuristics " .
Most often , all that DLL injection and the like result in an unstable browser , rather than providing any real protection .
Having said all that , I do see the utility in being able to do an occasional on-demand scan on an executable .
I also see why AV vendors are going for the nanny philosophy to deal with the armies of inexperienced users who have no idea about the " process " behind security .
But for those with a reasonable idea of it , it 's probably better to suffer the rare virus infection than endure a crawling system on a daily basis thanks to some overzealous AV product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This is why I don't use any AV product at all.
As long as you're reasonably careful not to download and install unknown programs, there's no way to justify incurring a huge performance hit on a daily basis.
For example, I once "fixed" a friend's PC in which she had installed two AV programs - Avira and McAfee - for additional protection and security as I heard.
File copying had dropped to something like 150Kb/sec between two hard drives because both anti-viruses were scanning it.
Disabling one increased the speed to about 1.5Mb/Sec.
Disabling both improved it to about 6Mb/Sec (figures according to rough recollection, to be taken with a pinch of salt).
I eventually left one on since she wasn't an experienced user and needed some anti-virus program, "just-in-case".
But experiences like these over the years have convinced me that the wisdom about adjusting your process is far more valid than having an army of products.
I haven't had a single virus infection for as long as I can recall and if I did, that was because I'd been careless and run some program off the net without finding out what it was.
Also, I don't think AV programs offer any meaningful protection against things like browser flaws.
If someone decides to exploit say a buffer overflow vulnerability in your browser and you simultaneously decide to browse to that very site which does so, well, so sad, too bad.
Might as well wait for the browser vendor to release a patch which fixes that flaw and use a more secure browser like Chrome to browse dodgy sites, rather than pray an ineffective AV magically detects it with its "heuristics".
Most often, all that DLL injection and the like result in an unstable browser, rather than providing any real protection.
Having said all that, I do see the utility in being able to do an occasional on-demand scan on an executable.
I also see why AV vendors are going for the nanny philosophy to deal with the armies of inexperienced users who have no idea about the "process" behind security.
But for those with a reasonable idea of it, it's probably better to suffer the rare virus infection than endure a crawling system on a daily basis thanks to some overzealous AV product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</id>
	<title>They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1257612300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about testing some malware removal programs? Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?</p><p>I find Malwarebyte's Anti-malware to work wonders. Paired with Avast home edition, it is a good free combination. I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.</p><p>They tested these:</p><p>Avast Professional Edition 4.8<br>AVG Anti-Virus 8.5<br>AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0<br>BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010<br>eScan Anti-Virus 10.0<br>ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0<br>F-Secure AntiVirus 2010<br>G DATA AntiVirus 2010<br>Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010<br>Kingsoft AntiVirus 9<br>McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009<br>Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0<br>Norman Antivirus &amp; Anti-Spyware 7.10<br>Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6<br>Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010<br>Trustport Antivirus 2009</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about testing some malware removal programs ?
Malwarebytes , Adaware , Spybot ? I find Malwarebyte 's Anti-malware to work wonders .
Paired with Avast home edition , it is a good free combination .
I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal , and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.They tested these : Avast Professional Edition 4.8AVG Anti-Virus 8.5AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010eScan Anti-Virus 10.0ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0F-Secure AntiVirus 2010G DATA AntiVirus 2010Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010Kingsoft AntiVirus 9McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0Norman Antivirus &amp; Anti-Spyware 7.10Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010Trustport Antivirus 2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about testing some malware removal programs?
Malwarebytes, Adaware, Spybot?I find Malwarebyte's Anti-malware to work wonders.
Paired with Avast home edition, it is a good free combination.
I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.They tested these:Avast Professional Edition 4.8AVG Anti-Virus 8.5AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010eScan Anti-Virus 10.0ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0F-Secure AntiVirus 2010G DATA AntiVirus 2010Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010Kingsoft AntiVirus 9McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0Norman Antivirus &amp; Anti-Spyware 7.10Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010Trustport Antivirus 2009</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019830</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257713040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone want to test Spybot? It's crap. I've seen false positives remain in Spybot that every other vendor fixed 5 years ago. It was once pretty good, but those days are long past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want to test Spybot ?
It 's crap .
I 've seen false positives remain in Spybot that every other vendor fixed 5 years ago .
It was once pretty good , but those days are long past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want to test Spybot?
It's crap.
I've seen false positives remain in Spybot that every other vendor fixed 5 years ago.
It was once pretty good, but those days are long past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866</id>
	<title>Security...</title>
	<author>xanadu113</author>
	<datestamp>1257610980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security is a process, not a product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is a process , not a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is a process, not a product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634</id>
	<title>Whack a mole, just like...</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1257622260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've been fighting computer viruses for decades now.  And we haven't made any headway.  It just seems to get worse.  Isn't it time that we all just give up and allow viruses to infect our computers?  Let's stop fighting it.  Let's stop playing 'whack a mole'.  No?  You don't think so?  Sorry, I just has to say that to parody all of the 'you can't stop piracy, you should just permit it' arguments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been fighting computer viruses for decades now .
And we have n't made any headway .
It just seems to get worse .
Is n't it time that we all just give up and allow viruses to infect our computers ?
Let 's stop fighting it .
Let 's stop playing 'whack a mole' .
No ? You do n't think so ?
Sorry , I just has to say that to parody all of the 'you ca n't stop piracy , you should just permit it ' arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been fighting computer viruses for decades now.
And we haven't made any headway.
It just seems to get worse.
Isn't it time that we all just give up and allow viruses to infect our computers?
Let's stop fighting it.
Let's stop playing 'whack a mole'.
No?  You don't think so?
Sorry, I just has to say that to parody all of the 'you can't stop piracy, you should just permit it' arguments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023470</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257706320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you do about the user's personal files and configuration?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you do about the user 's personal files and configuration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you do about the user's personal files and configuration?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019496</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Slashdot, Microsoft marketing's latest sheltered workshop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot , Microsoft marketing 's latest sheltered workshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot, Microsoft marketing's latest sheltered workshop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020070</id>
	<title>Not malware removal, but heuristics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257675240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the malware removal I'm worried about. It is preventing the malware to infect the computer. A lot of anti virus scanners (see av-comparatives) have very high detection rates of more than 97\%(of millions of malware samples) in combination with very fast updates. (GData has more than 99\%) But this is signature based. So if I have the source code of a virus and I modify it a bit, it could get passed the detection.  Heuristics is therefore  more important, but even the most advanced virusscanner is after a week of no updates only on at 70\% detection(again av-comparatives)</p><p>How can we solve this? Can we ever develop a pro active virusscanner?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the malware removal I 'm worried about .
It is preventing the malware to infect the computer .
A lot of anti virus scanners ( see av-comparatives ) have very high detection rates of more than 97 \ % ( of millions of malware samples ) in combination with very fast updates .
( GData has more than 99 \ % ) But this is signature based .
So if I have the source code of a virus and I modify it a bit , it could get passed the detection .
Heuristics is therefore more important , but even the most advanced virusscanner is after a week of no updates only on at 70 \ % detection ( again av-comparatives ) How can we solve this ?
Can we ever develop a pro active virusscanner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the malware removal I'm worried about.
It is preventing the malware to infect the computer.
A lot of anti virus scanners (see av-comparatives) have very high detection rates of more than 97\%(of millions of malware samples) in combination with very fast updates.
(GData has more than 99\%) But this is signature based.
So if I have the source code of a virus and I modify it a bit, it could get passed the detection.
Heuristics is therefore  more important, but even the most advanced virusscanner is after a week of no updates only on at 70\% detection(again av-comparatives)How can we solve this?
Can we ever develop a pro active virusscanner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020534</id>
	<title>Re:Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Hymer</author>
	<datestamp>1257683700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've got some of those you simply: </p><ol><li>boot live CD</li><li>backup your data</li><li>format disk (no, quick format is not good enough)</li><li>either reinstall OS and applications <br>or restore disk image</li><li>update system</li><li>restore your data (remember to scan it first)</li></ol><p>It may be much faster than finding and removing malware... especially if you've got a disk image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got some of those you simply : boot live CDbackup your dataformat disk ( no , quick format is not good enough ) either reinstall OS and applications or restore disk imageupdate systemrestore your data ( remember to scan it first ) It may be much faster than finding and removing malware... especially if you 've got a disk image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got some of those you simply: boot live CDbackup your dataformat disk (no, quick format is not good enough)either reinstall OS and applications or restore disk imageupdate systemrestore your data (remember to scan it first)It may be much faster than finding and removing malware... especially if you've got a disk image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020470</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>strikethree</author>
	<datestamp>1257682800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reimaging is fine and all but what do you use to keep all of the patches current on that image? If you have no way to apply patches to this image, you will be sending the computer out without all of the security patches, and those take time to apply manually.</p><p>Unfortunately, in a Microsoft world, everything is painful, even the status quo.</p><p>Regards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reimaging is fine and all but what do you use to keep all of the patches current on that image ?
If you have no way to apply patches to this image , you will be sending the computer out without all of the security patches , and those take time to apply manually.Unfortunately , in a Microsoft world , everything is painful , even the status quo.Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reimaging is fine and all but what do you use to keep all of the patches current on that image?
If you have no way to apply patches to this image, you will be sending the computer out without all of the security patches, and those take time to apply manually.Unfortunately, in a Microsoft world, everything is painful, even the status quo.Regards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020238</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most business's that I've worked for use imaging - and it's definitely the way to go.
<br> <br>
But what about at home? Are there any good open source or free imaging software? Can you DIY?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most business 's that I 've worked for use imaging - and it 's definitely the way to go .
But what about at home ?
Are there any good open source or free imaging software ?
Can you DIY ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most business's that I've worked for use imaging - and it's definitely the way to go.
But what about at home?
Are there any good open source or free imaging software?
Can you DIY?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257615420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Testing online (meaning running the removal program on a running, infected, system) removal seems kinda silly. You are fighting a war there and the malware has the upper hand being there first. On a compromised system you generally want to work on it offline. You either boot a live CD or take the hard disk to another computer. That way the malware can't be running. You can then use tools to track it down and remove it.</p><p>Running a scanner on a live system is more of a preventative measure and a detection measure. You have a realtime scanner looking for threats coming in. If it finds them, it can block them before they have a chance to do anything. This is 99.9\% of the good a virus scanner does. It stops them before they ever infect the system. It can then also help in terms of alerting you if a system is infected.</p><p>However counting on one to be good at removal on a live system seems silly. Take the system offline, fix it, and bring it back up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Testing online ( meaning running the removal program on a running , infected , system ) removal seems kinda silly .
You are fighting a war there and the malware has the upper hand being there first .
On a compromised system you generally want to work on it offline .
You either boot a live CD or take the hard disk to another computer .
That way the malware ca n't be running .
You can then use tools to track it down and remove it.Running a scanner on a live system is more of a preventative measure and a detection measure .
You have a realtime scanner looking for threats coming in .
If it finds them , it can block them before they have a chance to do anything .
This is 99.9 \ % of the good a virus scanner does .
It stops them before they ever infect the system .
It can then also help in terms of alerting you if a system is infected.However counting on one to be good at removal on a live system seems silly .
Take the system offline , fix it , and bring it back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testing online (meaning running the removal program on a running, infected, system) removal seems kinda silly.
You are fighting a war there and the malware has the upper hand being there first.
On a compromised system you generally want to work on it offline.
You either boot a live CD or take the hard disk to another computer.
That way the malware can't be running.
You can then use tools to track it down and remove it.Running a scanner on a live system is more of a preventative measure and a detection measure.
You have a realtime scanner looking for threats coming in.
If it finds them, it can block them before they have a chance to do anything.
This is 99.9\% of the good a virus scanner does.
It stops them before they ever infect the system.
It can then also help in terms of alerting you if a system is infected.However counting on one to be good at removal on a live system seems silly.
Take the system offline, fix it, and bring it back up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019736</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257710820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Instead i'm going to make lots of recommendations.
Cleaning an infection is all about using lots of tools, since no one tool is perfect, every tool has a gap in what it can detect or clean.
But when it comes to <b>prevention</b> as few tools as possible should be used, and low-overhead choices should be used, since every tool installed and running slows down the workstation, and big-footprint tools have a big negative effect on users' productivity.
</p><p> <em>I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.</em> </p><p>
I don't recommend this.  Your scanner has no way of knowing the secondary drive is a complete system.
</p><p>
Some malware/viruses make registry and system-level changes, and these registry changes can have serious long-term consequences.    Get anti-malware on the system that can fix the registry in the proper removal process.
</p><p>
In the extreme case, running the scan on the medium plugged into another system, can result in you rendering the disk you are scanning an unbootable  OS.
</p><p>
For cleaning process,  I recommend having a  bootable USB stick, with a <b>hardware<b> write-protect switch. Always set the physical write-protect switch to the  read-only position when plugging into the system being cleaned.</b> </b>
</p><p>
Then install anti-virus/anti-malware tools, I use:
</p><p>
Avira Antivirus<br>
SUPERAntispyware<br>
Malwarebytes Anti-malware Technician Edition<br>
PC Tools Spyware Doctor<br>
PrevX Enterprise<br>
Lavasoft Adaware Business<br>
ESET NOD.32<br>
ComboFix<br>
HijackThis</p><p>
Copy tools installers to some innocuous folder on the hard drive, or  have them installed to run from USB.
</p><p>
Run a Malwarebytes quick scan first, if possible, since it's fastest.   Since the USB stick MBAM is installed on is read-only, malware can't delete or tamper with mbam.exe.   Sometimes it doesn't work:  some malware detects specific cleaning tools.
</p><p>
In that case, use a different program.  Or,  actually have various methods of stopping malware from detecting the program: things like  hexediting  strings in anti-malware executables  to make the anti-malware "undetectable" by malware's naive procedures.
</p><p>
Anyways, after the initial pass with some scanner,  it will generally require a reboot, then another pass with the scanner to delete locked files.   Do that.
</p><p>
After all that, boot from a bootable USB stick,  which is either an Avira, ESET, BitDefender, or Kaspersky rescue disk image, and run a full scan from rescue media.
</p><p>
Then  boot back into the system... and run a complete scan with all 6 anti-spyware tools  (except HijackThis and Combofix, only use use once, pick only one AV tool to use.   Only remove things with HijackThis if you understand what is not safe to remove).
</p><p>
Otherwise: any time that a tool reports something found, I clean it, reboot, and note that when finished this round of scanning with the next tools, the spyware scans need to be done over again with all tools.
</p><p>
Only after running a complete scan with all the anti-spyware tools and  successfully getting "0 results found successively with each tool,  can one reliably say "I think it's clean".
</p><p>
Once you get that, uninstall all anti-spyware and AV tools that were installed on the system, and install the preferred End-Point <b>preventative</b> security tools.
</p><p>
Many of the tools that are great for scanning aren't the ones good for prevention.
</p><p>
HijackThis and Spybot can make for reasonable cleaning in some cases.   But for prevention of malware, it's gotta be something like PrevX or Spyware Doctor.
</p><p>
And virus prevention should be eEye Blink,  or ESET + Trend Micro,  with some sort of IDS and network-wide patch management in place, e.g. Shavlik NetChk.
</p><p>
The major consideration with prevention of AV on user workstations, is that: realtime protection <b>should be available</b>, enabled, and configured properly.
The footprint should be <b>minimal</b>.  Users shouldn't notice any slowdown,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead i 'm going to make lots of recommendations .
Cleaning an infection is all about using lots of tools , since no one tool is perfect , every tool has a gap in what it can detect or clean .
But when it comes to prevention as few tools as possible should be used , and low-overhead choices should be used , since every tool installed and running slows down the workstation , and big-footprint tools have a big negative effect on users ' productivity .
I 've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine .
I do n't recommend this .
Your scanner has no way of knowing the secondary drive is a complete system .
Some malware/viruses make registry and system-level changes , and these registry changes can have serious long-term consequences .
Get anti-malware on the system that can fix the registry in the proper removal process .
In the extreme case , running the scan on the medium plugged into another system , can result in you rendering the disk you are scanning an unbootable OS .
For cleaning process , I recommend having a bootable USB stick , with a hardware write-protect switch .
Always set the physical write-protect switch to the read-only position when plugging into the system being cleaned .
Then install anti-virus/anti-malware tools , I use : Avira Antivirus SUPERAntispyware Malwarebytes Anti-malware Technician Edition PC Tools Spyware Doctor PrevX Enterprise Lavasoft Adaware Business ESET NOD.32 ComboFix HijackThis Copy tools installers to some innocuous folder on the hard drive , or have them installed to run from USB .
Run a Malwarebytes quick scan first , if possible , since it 's fastest .
Since the USB stick MBAM is installed on is read-only , malware ca n't delete or tamper with mbam.exe .
Sometimes it does n't work : some malware detects specific cleaning tools .
In that case , use a different program .
Or , actually have various methods of stopping malware from detecting the program : things like hexediting strings in anti-malware executables to make the anti-malware " undetectable " by malware 's naive procedures .
Anyways , after the initial pass with some scanner , it will generally require a reboot , then another pass with the scanner to delete locked files .
Do that .
After all that , boot from a bootable USB stick , which is either an Avira , ESET , BitDefender , or Kaspersky rescue disk image , and run a full scan from rescue media .
Then boot back into the system... and run a complete scan with all 6 anti-spyware tools ( except HijackThis and Combofix , only use use once , pick only one AV tool to use .
Only remove things with HijackThis if you understand what is not safe to remove ) .
Otherwise : any time that a tool reports something found , I clean it , reboot , and note that when finished this round of scanning with the next tools , the spyware scans need to be done over again with all tools .
Only after running a complete scan with all the anti-spyware tools and successfully getting " 0 results found successively with each tool , can one reliably say " I think it 's clean " .
Once you get that , uninstall all anti-spyware and AV tools that were installed on the system , and install the preferred End-Point preventative security tools .
Many of the tools that are great for scanning are n't the ones good for prevention .
HijackThis and Spybot can make for reasonable cleaning in some cases .
But for prevention of malware , it 's got ta be something like PrevX or Spyware Doctor .
And virus prevention should be eEye Blink , or ESET + Trend Micro , with some sort of IDS and network-wide patch management in place , e.g .
Shavlik NetChk .
The major consideration with prevention of AV on user workstations , is that : realtime protection should be available , enabled , and configured properly .
The footprint should be minimal .
Users should n't notice any slowdown,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Instead i'm going to make lots of recommendations.
Cleaning an infection is all about using lots of tools, since no one tool is perfect, every tool has a gap in what it can detect or clean.
But when it comes to prevention as few tools as possible should be used, and low-overhead choices should be used, since every tool installed and running slows down the workstation, and big-footprint tools have a big negative effect on users' productivity.
I've also emphasized the need to do the initial cleaning with the infected drive as the secondary in a second machine.
I don't recommend this.
Your scanner has no way of knowing the secondary drive is a complete system.
Some malware/viruses make registry and system-level changes, and these registry changes can have serious long-term consequences.
Get anti-malware on the system that can fix the registry in the proper removal process.
In the extreme case, running the scan on the medium plugged into another system, can result in you rendering the disk you are scanning an unbootable  OS.
For cleaning process,  I recommend having a  bootable USB stick, with a hardware write-protect switch.
Always set the physical write-protect switch to the  read-only position when plugging into the system being cleaned.
Then install anti-virus/anti-malware tools, I use:

Avira Antivirus
SUPERAntispyware
Malwarebytes Anti-malware Technician Edition
PC Tools Spyware Doctor
PrevX Enterprise
Lavasoft Adaware Business
ESET NOD.32
ComboFix
HijackThis
Copy tools installers to some innocuous folder on the hard drive, or  have them installed to run from USB.
Run a Malwarebytes quick scan first, if possible, since it's fastest.
Since the USB stick MBAM is installed on is read-only, malware can't delete or tamper with mbam.exe.
Sometimes it doesn't work:  some malware detects specific cleaning tools.
In that case, use a different program.
Or,  actually have various methods of stopping malware from detecting the program: things like  hexediting  strings in anti-malware executables  to make the anti-malware "undetectable" by malware's naive procedures.
Anyways, after the initial pass with some scanner,  it will generally require a reboot, then another pass with the scanner to delete locked files.
Do that.
After all that, boot from a bootable USB stick,  which is either an Avira, ESET, BitDefender, or Kaspersky rescue disk image, and run a full scan from rescue media.
Then  boot back into the system... and run a complete scan with all 6 anti-spyware tools  (except HijackThis and Combofix, only use use once, pick only one AV tool to use.
Only remove things with HijackThis if you understand what is not safe to remove).
Otherwise: any time that a tool reports something found, I clean it, reboot, and note that when finished this round of scanning with the next tools, the spyware scans need to be done over again with all tools.
Only after running a complete scan with all the anti-spyware tools and  successfully getting "0 results found successively with each tool,  can one reliably say "I think it's clean".
Once you get that, uninstall all anti-spyware and AV tools that were installed on the system, and install the preferred End-Point preventative security tools.
Many of the tools that are great for scanning aren't the ones good for prevention.
HijackThis and Spybot can make for reasonable cleaning in some cases.
But for prevention of malware, it's gotta be something like PrevX or Spyware Doctor.
And virus prevention should be eEye Blink,  or ESET + Trend Micro,  with some sort of IDS and network-wide patch management in place, e.g.
Shavlik NetChk.
The major consideration with prevention of AV on user workstations, is that: realtime protection should be available, enabled, and configured properly.
The footprint should be minimal.
Users shouldn't notice any slowdown,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019942</id>
	<title>A vicious cycle</title>
	<author>Keithownz</author>
	<datestamp>1257672540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with AV removal tools is that once the infection is in place it's near impossible to run them. (at least in normal mode) The infection will often create restrictive GPO's, a chain of self replicating drivers/ services/ scheduled tasks/ startup entries so that even if one piece is removed it will be recreated. <br>
<br>The best way to remove a virus is from a  <a href="http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/" title="nu2.nu" rel="nofollow"> bootable environment </a> [nu2.nu] which can remotely bind to the registry. Then it's just a matter of disabling the startup entires, deleting the install directories, removing the GPO's and deleting the malicious services and drivers. You can even run a command line version of the mentioned removal tools in bart pe to get the rootkits and hidden system file infections.
<br> <br>The majority of infections I see are the rogue security software where they infect you then tell you to pay to remove it. What's interesting is the company "witabett" provides technical support for their fake AV products after victims have purchased them! Check out their <a href="http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/witabettcom-18004762570-cyp-c216348.html" title="complaintsboard.com" rel="nofollow"> complaint board </a> [complaintsboard.com] it even provides a support phone number... Excellent drunk dialing material for my geeky friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with AV removal tools is that once the infection is in place it 's near impossible to run them .
( at least in normal mode ) The infection will often create restrictive GPO 's , a chain of self replicating drivers/ services/ scheduled tasks/ startup entries so that even if one piece is removed it will be recreated .
The best way to remove a virus is from a bootable environment [ nu2.nu ] which can remotely bind to the registry .
Then it 's just a matter of disabling the startup entires , deleting the install directories , removing the GPO 's and deleting the malicious services and drivers .
You can even run a command line version of the mentioned removal tools in bart pe to get the rootkits and hidden system file infections .
The majority of infections I see are the rogue security software where they infect you then tell you to pay to remove it .
What 's interesting is the company " witabett " provides technical support for their fake AV products after victims have purchased them !
Check out their complaint board [ complaintsboard.com ] it even provides a support phone number... Excellent drunk dialing material for my geeky friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with AV removal tools is that once the infection is in place it's near impossible to run them.
(at least in normal mode) The infection will often create restrictive GPO's, a chain of self replicating drivers/ services/ scheduled tasks/ startup entries so that even if one piece is removed it will be recreated.
The best way to remove a virus is from a   bootable environment  [nu2.nu] which can remotely bind to the registry.
Then it's just a matter of disabling the startup entires, deleting the install directories, removing the GPO's and deleting the malicious services and drivers.
You can even run a command line version of the mentioned removal tools in bart pe to get the rootkits and hidden system file infections.
The majority of infections I see are the rogue security software where they infect you then tell you to pay to remove it.
What's interesting is the company "witabett" provides technical support for their fake AV products after victims have purchased them!
Check out their  complaint board  [complaintsboard.com] it even provides a support phone number... Excellent drunk dialing material for my geeky friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020008</id>
	<title>Re:Kinda pointless</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1257674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the primary purpose of real security is to keep from getting infected or allowing the malicious to gain an advantage.

</p><p>The primary purpose of antivirus is to do an AIDS test 10 years after you had sex without bothering to use a condom. Maybe you should wear the condom first, and when you get the AIDS test as a precaution, you won't be too worried about it being positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the primary purpose of real security is to keep from getting infected or allowing the malicious to gain an advantage .
The primary purpose of antivirus is to do an AIDS test 10 years after you had sex without bothering to use a condom .
Maybe you should wear the condom first , and when you get the AIDS test as a precaution , you wo n't be too worried about it being positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the primary purpose of real security is to keep from getting infected or allowing the malicious to gain an advantage.
The primary purpose of antivirus is to do an AIDS test 10 years after you had sex without bothering to use a condom.
Maybe you should wear the condom first, and when you get the AIDS test as a precaution, you won't be too worried about it being positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019420</id>
	<title>Re:No Joke</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1257618360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its even past that.  It used to be kids who were out to knock off someone's machine on a local BBS.  Then it became the legion of professionals who went blackhat due to cash.</p><p>Now, you have well heeled groups, from criminal organizations to whole governments who have immensely deep pockets who spend billions in order to search through every Windows and UNIX executable just to find the single buffer overrun, race condition, or other small goof that can be used in an elaborate attack.  The payoff is big, and not just economics.</p><p>Of course the attacks are nastier and nastier.</p><p>Best defenses?  After the obvious firewall and network IDS, two of the best system level out there are virtualization with a hardened hypervisor and jailing of apps.  After that, an OS based IDS that can detect known signatures and unknown suspect activity.  This way, something that gets access to the OS via an unjailed browser or plugin hole is stopped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its even past that .
It used to be kids who were out to knock off someone 's machine on a local BBS .
Then it became the legion of professionals who went blackhat due to cash.Now , you have well heeled groups , from criminal organizations to whole governments who have immensely deep pockets who spend billions in order to search through every Windows and UNIX executable just to find the single buffer overrun , race condition , or other small goof that can be used in an elaborate attack .
The payoff is big , and not just economics.Of course the attacks are nastier and nastier.Best defenses ?
After the obvious firewall and network IDS , two of the best system level out there are virtualization with a hardened hypervisor and jailing of apps .
After that , an OS based IDS that can detect known signatures and unknown suspect activity .
This way , something that gets access to the OS via an unjailed browser or plugin hole is stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its even past that.
It used to be kids who were out to knock off someone's machine on a local BBS.
Then it became the legion of professionals who went blackhat due to cash.Now, you have well heeled groups, from criminal organizations to whole governments who have immensely deep pockets who spend billions in order to search through every Windows and UNIX executable just to find the single buffer overrun, race condition, or other small goof that can be used in an elaborate attack.
The payoff is big, and not just economics.Of course the attacks are nastier and nastier.Best defenses?
After the obvious firewall and network IDS, two of the best system level out there are virtualization with a hardened hypervisor and jailing of apps.
After that, an OS based IDS that can detect known signatures and unknown suspect activity.
This way, something that gets access to the OS via an unjailed browser or plugin hole is stopped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020390</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257681300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I clean malware all day (yes, it is part of my job too) and I think the recommendations do help people.  Something is better than nothing.  Once the computer is compromised, something can *still* be better than nothing - it just depends on what the PC was compromised with.  Most users can't boot into safe mode, much less swap hardware around.  Don't take away the easy solution just because it isn't the best solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I clean malware all day ( yes , it is part of my job too ) and I think the recommendations do help people .
Something is better than nothing .
Once the computer is compromised , something can * still * be better than nothing - it just depends on what the PC was compromised with .
Most users ca n't boot into safe mode , much less swap hardware around .
Do n't take away the easy solution just because it is n't the best solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I clean malware all day (yes, it is part of my job too) and I think the recommendations do help people.
Something is better than nothing.
Once the computer is compromised, something can *still* be better than nothing - it just depends on what the PC was compromised with.
Most users can't boot into safe mode, much less swap hardware around.
Don't take away the easy solution just because it isn't the best solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019594</id>
	<title>Re:They tested Anti-virus software for malware</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1257621600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think all system administrators performing the job they are paid to do don't muck about with such things - guessing where the system has been compromised and what is in some hidden corner.  Instead they wipe it and rebuild or restore from backups.  Of course outside the job we are confronted by people that do not have backups or even install media (every raving MS windows fanboy I've met did not actually pay for the software), so then you have to muck about with "cleaning" things and hope you've got the lot.<br>They are called 0wned for a reason, it's not your computer anymore you are better off wiping it and starting again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal , and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.I think all system administrators performing the job they are paid to do do n't muck about with such things - guessing where the system has been compromised and what is in some hidden corner .
Instead they wipe it and rebuild or restore from backups .
Of course outside the job we are confronted by people that do not have backups or even install media ( every raving MS windows fanboy I 've met did not actually pay for the software ) , so then you have to muck about with " cleaning " things and hope you 've got the lot.They are called 0wned for a reason , it 's not your computer anymore you are better off wiping it and starting again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most system administrators notice the difference between software primarily tailored for virus detection and removal, and ones tailored for malware detection and removal.I think all system administrators performing the job they are paid to do don't muck about with such things - guessing where the system has been compromised and what is in some hidden corner.
Instead they wipe it and rebuild or restore from backups.
Of course outside the job we are confronted by people that do not have backups or even install media (every raving MS windows fanboy I've met did not actually pay for the software), so then you have to muck about with "cleaning" things and hope you've got the lot.They are called 0wned for a reason, it's not your computer anymore you are better off wiping it and starting again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029238</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1257706560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article you cited describes Macs getting infected by users installing infected files manually. That's much different from a Windows user becoming infected with drive-by downloads / infection from banner ads. No system can completely secure the machine from a user running as root or with root credentials (which if you're unfamiliar with Macs is usually required to install most OSX software).<br> <br>The common thread I see is that Windows machines are still getting owned regularly despite attempts to patch it with AV software, and there just doesn't seem to be a good solution available.<br> <br>What do I use? Other than a Mac (with Windows XP and several other OS's in VMs), I use Trend on the XP VM along with stateful inspection on the Exchange server and firewall, which basically combines both "regular" server software with a monitored service that analyzes content accessed from within the network and people outside the network trying to get in. It's not cheap but it is effective, and the number of viruses / outbreaks are minimized as a result. But they are still nonzero, and time and effort is wasted on reimaging the machines (mostly laptop users). Despite all the protections, I do maintain multiple copies of my XP VM just in case.<br> <br>Do I ever worry that my Mac will become infected? Never. I consider the chance of infection from driveby's on OSX or Linux laughable, as does most of the industry. I've been in the industry (starting with programming, through PC repair, consulting, later sysadmining, DB, middleware and enterprise app development) for almost 3 decades on a considerable number of different system types -- and Mac viruses just aren't an issue. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article you cited describes Macs getting infected by users installing infected files manually .
That 's much different from a Windows user becoming infected with drive-by downloads / infection from banner ads .
No system can completely secure the machine from a user running as root or with root credentials ( which if you 're unfamiliar with Macs is usually required to install most OSX software ) .
The common thread I see is that Windows machines are still getting owned regularly despite attempts to patch it with AV software , and there just does n't seem to be a good solution available .
What do I use ?
Other than a Mac ( with Windows XP and several other OS 's in VMs ) , I use Trend on the XP VM along with stateful inspection on the Exchange server and firewall , which basically combines both " regular " server software with a monitored service that analyzes content accessed from within the network and people outside the network trying to get in .
It 's not cheap but it is effective , and the number of viruses / outbreaks are minimized as a result .
But they are still nonzero , and time and effort is wasted on reimaging the machines ( mostly laptop users ) .
Despite all the protections , I do maintain multiple copies of my XP VM just in case .
Do I ever worry that my Mac will become infected ?
Never. I consider the chance of infection from driveby 's on OSX or Linux laughable , as does most of the industry .
I 've been in the industry ( starting with programming , through PC repair , consulting , later sysadmining , DB , middleware and enterprise app development ) for almost 3 decades on a considerable number of different system types -- and Mac viruses just are n't an issue .
Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article you cited describes Macs getting infected by users installing infected files manually.
That's much different from a Windows user becoming infected with drive-by downloads / infection from banner ads.
No system can completely secure the machine from a user running as root or with root credentials (which if you're unfamiliar with Macs is usually required to install most OSX software).
The common thread I see is that Windows machines are still getting owned regularly despite attempts to patch it with AV software, and there just doesn't seem to be a good solution available.
What do I use?
Other than a Mac (with Windows XP and several other OS's in VMs), I use Trend on the XP VM along with stateful inspection on the Exchange server and firewall, which basically combines both "regular" server software with a monitored service that analyzes content accessed from within the network and people outside the network trying to get in.
It's not cheap but it is effective, and the number of viruses / outbreaks are minimized as a result.
But they are still nonzero, and time and effort is wasted on reimaging the machines (mostly laptop users).
Despite all the protections, I do maintain multiple copies of my XP VM just in case.
Do I ever worry that my Mac will become infected?
Never. I consider the chance of infection from driveby's on OSX or Linux laughable, as does most of the industry.
I've been in the industry (starting with programming, through PC repair, consulting, later sysadmining, DB, middleware and enterprise app development) for almost 3 decades on a considerable number of different system types -- and Mac viruses just aren't an issue.
Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30028276</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the recommendations</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257697140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stop recommending products.</p></div><p>I'm not allowed to where I work. Too much chance of something going wrong and then us getting blamed. My standard line for years has been "No virus scanner or spyware scanner is perfect."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well. It is right on. 80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware.</p></div><p>We wound up having to make the labor charge on our virus cleaning more expensive just to reduce the number of people getting it done. Takes up far too much in the way of resources to do it right, especially when we've got tons of hardware related diagnostics to do on other machines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop recommending products.I 'm not allowed to where I work .
Too much chance of something going wrong and then us getting blamed .
My standard line for years has been " No virus scanner or spyware scanner is perfect .
" The tests demonstrate that av products do n't perform well .
It is right on .
80 \ % of my day is spent cleaning malware.We wound up having to make the labor charge on our virus cleaning more expensive just to reduce the number of people getting it done .
Takes up far too much in the way of resources to do it right , especially when we 've got tons of hardware related diagnostics to do on other machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop recommending products.I'm not allowed to where I work.
Too much chance of something going wrong and then us getting blamed.
My standard line for years has been "No virus scanner or spyware scanner is perfect.
"The tests demonstrate that av products don't perform well.
It is right on.
80\% of my day is spent cleaning malware.We wound up having to make the labor charge on our virus cleaning more expensive just to reduce the number of people getting it done.
Takes up far too much in the way of resources to do it right, especially when we've got tons of hardware related diagnostics to do on other machines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30031346</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1257774720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because people would not buy those computers, simple as that. Why? Because they would obviously have to be less capable and versatile than the normal computers we have today.</p><p>It's trivial to develop a computer with a fixed state system partition that cannot be altered that allows you to browse pages and read mail and takes away your ability to alter the system in any way or to install additional programs. The problem: This system would cost at least as much as more versatile systems because, well, the components are the same. Actually it would have to cost more, because your additional work to lock it down would have to be paid.</p><p>How do you want to convince people to pay more for less?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people would not buy those computers , simple as that .
Why ? Because they would obviously have to be less capable and versatile than the normal computers we have today.It 's trivial to develop a computer with a fixed state system partition that can not be altered that allows you to browse pages and read mail and takes away your ability to alter the system in any way or to install additional programs .
The problem : This system would cost at least as much as more versatile systems because , well , the components are the same .
Actually it would have to cost more , because your additional work to lock it down would have to be paid.How do you want to convince people to pay more for less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people would not buy those computers, simple as that.
Why? Because they would obviously have to be less capable and versatile than the normal computers we have today.It's trivial to develop a computer with a fixed state system partition that cannot be altered that allows you to browse pages and read mail and takes away your ability to alter the system in any way or to install additional programs.
The problem: This system would cost at least as much as more versatile systems because, well, the components are the same.
Actually it would have to cost more, because your additional work to lock it down would have to be paid.How do you want to convince people to pay more for less?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006</id>
	<title>No Joke</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1257612660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been working in the on-site support field for over a decade.  I've seen the viruses get nastier and nastier.<br>
<br>
It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system, maybe did a little damage or had a little fun.  Sometimes it was pretty funny.  Such as screwing with the mouse.<br>
<br>
Then things started to get a little more serious.  The virus would insinuate itself into the system folder and maybe IE.  They stated doing tasks.  Thus rose the botnets.<br>
<br>
Then it became big business for people.  The spreading of spam and fake anti-virus (that wanted you to purchase the "full version" so that you'd get rid of the virus they said you had) was the order of the day.  They started blocking access to the run box, the task manager, and sites that might be able to help you (online virus scanners).  They started killing the AV programs.  They also replaced the explorer.exe and iexplore.exe files.  Hell, they even go after Firefox, Chorme, and Opera.<br>
<br>
They really get their hooks into in and don't want to let go because it means money.  Big money.  So I'm not surprised that AV programs are having a tough time getting rid of them.  It hasn't been kiddies out for fun for a long time.  Now it's all about professional programmers out to make an ill gotten buck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been working in the on-site support field for over a decade .
I 've seen the viruses get nastier and nastier .
It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system , maybe did a little damage or had a little fun .
Sometimes it was pretty funny .
Such as screwing with the mouse .
Then things started to get a little more serious .
The virus would insinuate itself into the system folder and maybe IE .
They stated doing tasks .
Thus rose the botnets .
Then it became big business for people .
The spreading of spam and fake anti-virus ( that wanted you to purchase the " full version " so that you 'd get rid of the virus they said you had ) was the order of the day .
They started blocking access to the run box , the task manager , and sites that might be able to help you ( online virus scanners ) .
They started killing the AV programs .
They also replaced the explorer.exe and iexplore.exe files .
Hell , they even go after Firefox , Chorme , and Opera .
They really get their hooks into in and do n't want to let go because it means money .
Big money .
So I 'm not surprised that AV programs are having a tough time getting rid of them .
It has n't been kiddies out for fun for a long time .
Now it 's all about professional programmers out to make an ill gotten buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been working in the on-site support field for over a decade.
I've seen the viruses get nastier and nastier.
It used to be that the virus got a hold of the system, maybe did a little damage or had a little fun.
Sometimes it was pretty funny.
Such as screwing with the mouse.
Then things started to get a little more serious.
The virus would insinuate itself into the system folder and maybe IE.
They stated doing tasks.
Thus rose the botnets.
Then it became big business for people.
The spreading of spam and fake anti-virus (that wanted you to purchase the "full version" so that you'd get rid of the virus they said you had) was the order of the day.
They started blocking access to the run box, the task manager, and sites that might be able to help you (online virus scanners).
They started killing the AV programs.
They also replaced the explorer.exe and iexplore.exe files.
Hell, they even go after Firefox, Chorme, and Opera.
They really get their hooks into in and don't want to let go because it means money.
Big money.
So I'm not surprised that AV programs are having a tough time getting rid of them.
It hasn't been kiddies out for fun for a long time.
Now it's all about professional programmers out to make an ill gotten buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029482</id>
	<title>Microsoft killed this market also...</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1257709800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does not matter what any of the other Virus scanning software makers do anymore as Microsoft has killed this market; as so many others before them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not matter what any of the other Virus scanning software makers do anymore as Microsoft has killed this market ; as so many others before them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not matter what any of the other Virus scanning software makers do anymore as Microsoft has killed this market; as so many others before them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024118</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257711060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out.''</p><p>The question is why there isn't a company making major money providing computers that work that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` They just want to be able to power up , do what they want and log out .
''The question is why there is n't a company making major money providing computers that work that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out.
''The question is why there isn't a company making major money providing computers that work that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019494</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1257619740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. That would be the smart thing to do, but the products are designed to run on an infected system. That's why they should be tested in this way.<br>Also, fixing the system offline is too complicated for the average user (to whom these products aim for).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
That would be the smart thing to do , but the products are designed to run on an infected system .
That 's why they should be tested in this way.Also , fixing the system offline is too complicated for the average user ( to whom these products aim for ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
That would be the smart thing to do, but the products are designed to run on an infected system.
That's why they should be tested in this way.Also, fixing the system offline is too complicated for the average user (to whom these products aim for).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020804</id>
	<title>Re:Wipe It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you store the user's data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you store the user 's data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you store the user's data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020400</id>
	<title>Re:Whack a mole, just like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257681420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first experience with the dark side was a trojan in a whack-a-mole game. Ahhh, the good days when a hacker tells you that you have a problem and how to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first experience with the dark side was a trojan in a whack-a-mole game .
Ahhh , the good days when a hacker tells you that you have a problem and how to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first experience with the dark side was a trojan in a whack-a-mole game.
Ahhh, the good days when a hacker tells you that you have a problem and how to fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021904</id>
	<title>Test results are not exactly meaningful</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1257696840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was nice to see how various products did on the simple tests. However, several serious mistakes were made in the test methodology.</p><p>First, 10 virus samples for the test cannot give a statistically meaningful result. At least 31 different samples are necessary, as people who have had testing statistics and quality control education would know.</p><p>Second, and even worse, the tests were not performed under real world conditions. No system has ever been shown to have only one infection in the real world. The testing should have included detection / removal on systems with all malware installed. This is what real world users see.</p><p>Third, the "cleaned" systems should have been retested to see if infection would repeat under supposedly "cleaned" conditions. If the registry entries blocked reinfection (I seriously doubt it), then that would be seen. This would not have been a valid complaint if they had not brought it up in their article. (courtroom trial  rules)</p><p>Fourth, with  the anti-malware product running and protection fully enabled, would any of the malware be blocked from installing, or even downloading? This would not be a valid complaint if they only chose products which have no preventative methods (firewall, sandbox operation).  Products which do not ahve adequate protective behavior are worse than worthless to the public, as they would have the idea that they are safe when using the product. That is the whole purpose of these products, to make the user believe he is in some way safe. But he is seriously not safe.</p><p>Fifth, using only non-damaging malware samples is also unrealistic. Performance against damaging malware is very important, and was untested. Performance against one small, safe, variety of malware does not indicate anything about the anti-malware product's usefulness to the public.</p><p>Sheesh, I could probably go on for a while, but I give up. We have surpassed the three strikes rule quite a bit already. This post is just an advertisement for AV-Comparative. Did someone get paid for this post? They should have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was nice to see how various products did on the simple tests .
However , several serious mistakes were made in the test methodology.First , 10 virus samples for the test can not give a statistically meaningful result .
At least 31 different samples are necessary , as people who have had testing statistics and quality control education would know.Second , and even worse , the tests were not performed under real world conditions .
No system has ever been shown to have only one infection in the real world .
The testing should have included detection / removal on systems with all malware installed .
This is what real world users see.Third , the " cleaned " systems should have been retested to see if infection would repeat under supposedly " cleaned " conditions .
If the registry entries blocked reinfection ( I seriously doubt it ) , then that would be seen .
This would not have been a valid complaint if they had not brought it up in their article .
( courtroom trial rules ) Fourth , with the anti-malware product running and protection fully enabled , would any of the malware be blocked from installing , or even downloading ?
This would not be a valid complaint if they only chose products which have no preventative methods ( firewall , sandbox operation ) .
Products which do not ahve adequate protective behavior are worse than worthless to the public , as they would have the idea that they are safe when using the product .
That is the whole purpose of these products , to make the user believe he is in some way safe .
But he is seriously not safe.Fifth , using only non-damaging malware samples is also unrealistic .
Performance against damaging malware is very important , and was untested .
Performance against one small , safe , variety of malware does not indicate anything about the anti-malware product 's usefulness to the public.Sheesh , I could probably go on for a while , but I give up .
We have surpassed the three strikes rule quite a bit already .
This post is just an advertisement for AV-Comparative .
Did someone get paid for this post ?
They should have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was nice to see how various products did on the simple tests.
However, several serious mistakes were made in the test methodology.First, 10 virus samples for the test cannot give a statistically meaningful result.
At least 31 different samples are necessary, as people who have had testing statistics and quality control education would know.Second, and even worse, the tests were not performed under real world conditions.
No system has ever been shown to have only one infection in the real world.
The testing should have included detection / removal on systems with all malware installed.
This is what real world users see.Third, the "cleaned" systems should have been retested to see if infection would repeat under supposedly "cleaned" conditions.
If the registry entries blocked reinfection (I seriously doubt it), then that would be seen.
This would not have been a valid complaint if they had not brought it up in their article.
(courtroom trial  rules)Fourth, with  the anti-malware product running and protection fully enabled, would any of the malware be blocked from installing, or even downloading?
This would not be a valid complaint if they only chose products which have no preventative methods (firewall, sandbox operation).
Products which do not ahve adequate protective behavior are worse than worthless to the public, as they would have the idea that they are safe when using the product.
That is the whole purpose of these products, to make the user believe he is in some way safe.
But he is seriously not safe.Fifth, using only non-damaging malware samples is also unrealistic.
Performance against damaging malware is very important, and was untested.
Performance against one small, safe, variety of malware does not indicate anything about the anti-malware product's usefulness to the public.Sheesh, I could probably go on for a while, but I give up.
We have surpassed the three strikes rule quite a bit already.
This post is just an advertisement for AV-Comparative.
Did someone get paid for this post?
They should have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526</id>
	<title>Wipe It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257620220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imaging products have become so good and fast that I no longer bother with 'scrubbing' a computer clean when it gets a virus.  I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish, and I don't have to worry about viral remnants in the registry or some deeply buried hidden folder with a time bomb inside.</p><p>I keep our company's image file up-to-date, and when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes.  Screw scouring the web for a utility to remove a particular virus that may or may not work, and screw relying on an all-in-one product to save you from malware.</p><p>I have come to terms with the absolute fact that users are stupid and careless and aside from rare individual who bother to be responsible, they will always be stupid and careless, no matter how much I wish they would change.</p><p>In a business environment, imaging is the way to go.</p><p>(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imaging products have become so good and fast that I no longer bother with 'scrubbing ' a computer clean when it gets a virus .
I can reimage the machine in less time ; 15 minutes from start to finish , and I do n't have to worry about viral remnants in the registry or some deeply buried hidden folder with a time bomb inside.I keep our company 's image file up-to-date , and when something goes wrong with a computer ( drive crash , corrupt registry , malware , whatever ) they are back online in 15 minutes .
Screw scouring the web for a utility to remove a particular virus that may or may not work , and screw relying on an all-in-one product to save you from malware.I have come to terms with the absolute fact that users are stupid and careless and aside from rare individual who bother to be responsible , they will always be stupid and careless , no matter how much I wish they would change.In a business environment , imaging is the way to go .
( I use a Mac at home and do n't have to worry about such things )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imaging products have become so good and fast that I no longer bother with 'scrubbing' a computer clean when it gets a virus.
I can reimage the machine in less time; 15 minutes from start to finish, and I don't have to worry about viral remnants in the registry or some deeply buried hidden folder with a time bomb inside.I keep our company's image file up-to-date, and when something goes wrong with a computer (drive crash, corrupt registry, malware, whatever) they are back online in 15 minutes.
Screw scouring the web for a utility to remove a particular virus that may or may not work, and screw relying on an all-in-one product to save you from malware.I have come to terms with the absolute fact that users are stupid and careless and aside from rare individual who bother to be responsible, they will always be stupid and careless, no matter how much I wish they would change.In a business environment, imaging is the way to go.
(I use a Mac at home and don't have to worry about such things)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020616</id>
	<title>AVG Free: worse than just mediocre</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1257684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned the hard way recently that the latest version 9 of AVG Free has a nasty habit of creating hidden directories and files on every partition, even externals, and then keeping some of those files open for no obvious reason at all.  The result is that it becomes impossible to use Windows to reformat those partitions, even when they are otherwise empty and idle; the only way for inexperienced folks to format such partitions is to uninstall AVG entirely, since there's no accessible way to remove or close the offending files and no way to even temporarily disable AVG completely.  I suspect it applies to the "premium" product as well.  There were reports by others of the same problem.</p><p>You know your antivirus software is FUBAR when it breaks fundamental operating system features that have been present for two decades.  It's arguably a cure worse than the disease at that point.  Would you pay money for software sporting such features?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned the hard way recently that the latest version 9 of AVG Free has a nasty habit of creating hidden directories and files on every partition , even externals , and then keeping some of those files open for no obvious reason at all .
The result is that it becomes impossible to use Windows to reformat those partitions , even when they are otherwise empty and idle ; the only way for inexperienced folks to format such partitions is to uninstall AVG entirely , since there 's no accessible way to remove or close the offending files and no way to even temporarily disable AVG completely .
I suspect it applies to the " premium " product as well .
There were reports by others of the same problem.You know your antivirus software is FUBAR when it breaks fundamental operating system features that have been present for two decades .
It 's arguably a cure worse than the disease at that point .
Would you pay money for software sporting such features ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned the hard way recently that the latest version 9 of AVG Free has a nasty habit of creating hidden directories and files on every partition, even externals, and then keeping some of those files open for no obvious reason at all.
The result is that it becomes impossible to use Windows to reformat those partitions, even when they are otherwise empty and idle; the only way for inexperienced folks to format such partitions is to uninstall AVG entirely, since there's no accessible way to remove or close the offending files and no way to even temporarily disable AVG completely.
I suspect it applies to the "premium" product as well.
There were reports by others of the same problem.You know your antivirus software is FUBAR when it breaks fundamental operating system features that have been present for two decades.
It's arguably a cure worse than the disease at that point.
Would you pay money for software sporting such features?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020808</id>
	<title>Re:Whack a mole, just like...</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1257688260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, computers should not allow users to install any programs; if additional software is needed, users can buy a new factory-programmed machine. Software updates will be registered with ISPs, and delivered for a fee to users. Any other distribution of programs to users will of course be punished with not more than 10 years in jail. Finally, there should be a law requiring ISPs to scan users' computers, and fine people with infected machines $50000; if they are caught 3 times, they should be banned from using a computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , computers should not allow users to install any programs ; if additional software is needed , users can buy a new factory-programmed machine .
Software updates will be registered with ISPs , and delivered for a fee to users .
Any other distribution of programs to users will of course be punished with not more than 10 years in jail .
Finally , there should be a law requiring ISPs to scan users ' computers , and fine people with infected machines $ 50000 ; if they are caught 3 times , they should be banned from using a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, computers should not allow users to install any programs; if additional software is needed, users can buy a new factory-programmed machine.
Software updates will be registered with ISPs, and delivered for a fee to users.
Any other distribution of programs to users will of course be punished with not more than 10 years in jail.
Finally, there should be a law requiring ISPs to scan users' computers, and fine people with infected machines $50000; if they are caught 3 times, they should be banned from using a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30033230</id>
	<title>Where was Panda?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257783960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't test it on <a href="http://www.pandasecurity.com/" title="pandasecurity.com">Panda</a> [pandasecurity.com] which is a much bigger name than half of those 16 they tested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't test it on Panda [ pandasecurity.com ] which is a much bigger name than half of those 16 they tested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't test it on Panda [pandasecurity.com] which is a much bigger name than half of those 16 they tested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662</id>
	<title>Offline isn't always best, actually.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257622920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The offline approach worked fantastically in the year 2000, but now... the playing field has changed. <br> <br>We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams, utilize virtualization, employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can *only* be reliably detected if they are actually *running* because they conceal themselves using these techniques. *Even then*, it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself. As a result, some of these viruses don't show up in Safe Mode either...<br> <br>

Scanning offline is a good first step if the system is hosed. From my experiences though -- if the system can boot and mostly works -- do whatever scanning you can first while it is online. Use your best judgment as to whether you have mitigated the threat and THEN take it offline for the final clean up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The offline approach worked fantastically in the year 2000 , but now... the playing field has changed .
We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams , utilize virtualization , employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can * only * be reliably detected if they are actually * running * because they conceal themselves using these techniques .
* Even then * , it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself .
As a result , some of these viruses do n't show up in Safe Mode either.. . Scanning offline is a good first step if the system is hosed .
From my experiences though -- if the system can boot and mostly works -- do whatever scanning you can first while it is online .
Use your best judgment as to whether you have mitigated the threat and THEN take it offline for the final clean up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The offline approach worked fantastically in the year 2000, but now... the playing field has changed.
We have root kits that embed themselves into alternate data streams, utilize virtualization, employ self-encryption and password protection and randomize what would otherwise be easy-to-detect signatures etc.. Some root kits can *only* be reliably detected if they are actually *running* because they conceal themselves using these techniques.
*Even then*, it requires a competent utility with things like stealth detection which look specifically for that behavior of concealing/unconcealing itself.
As a result, some of these viruses don't show up in Safe Mode either... 

Scanning offline is a good first step if the system is hosed.
From my experiences though -- if the system can boot and mostly works -- do whatever scanning you can first while it is online.
Use your best judgment as to whether you have mitigated the threat and THEN take it offline for the final clean up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952</id>
	<title>Re:Security...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're dead on. However, it sure is surprising that they didn't test ClamAV, isn't it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/positive MS score and open source antivirus not tested? color me surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're dead on .
However , it sure is surprising that they did n't test ClamAV , is n't it ?
/positive MS score and open source antivirus not tested ?
color me surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're dead on.
However, it sure is surprising that they didn't test ClamAV, isn't it?
/positive MS score and open source antivirus not tested?
color me surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30044964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30031346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30034190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30028276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0233248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30025654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30044964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30031346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30033230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30022528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30028276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30021414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0233248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30018982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30034190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30023638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30020540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30024404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30029370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0233248.30019348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
