Unauthorized credit card use

[Justin Thyme]

Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there appeared
to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I thanked them
profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered cards in our
possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant, for
example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he may have
had, and that's a definite possibility.

I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my computer
(although I don't know how they might have got there). My suspicion was
raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program detected a Trojan horse
yesterday. (I regret that I immediately deleted the Trojan and cannot,
therefore, provide any information about it.)

Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all like a
keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a recommendation for
keylogger detection and removal?

TIA.

Ken Bland
--

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."

-- Alfred Adler (1870 - 1937)

 

[Mike M]

Ken,

I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe
since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never to
hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For example in
restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device in to which
they insert their card and then enter their authorising PIN with the
waiter never touching the card.

Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March when I
bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via the web site
of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I received an automated
phone call from my cc company asking me to verify three recent
transactions. No surprise I thought given the large payment I had just
authorised however I was surprised to find the first and most recent
transaction being queried was a payment to a casino in the West Indies (I
assume an on-line casino) which had been refused and triggered the check.
My cc company cancelled the card and the charge and all appeared OK and
two days later I received my replacement card. What was of interest is
that, believe it or not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself
listening to him recount a near identical story. We compared notes and
amazingly we had both bought laptops on-line from the same company
immediately prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story
and why I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud
originated with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more
likely a hacked web site.

> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?

Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.


Regards,
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:

> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there
> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I
> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered
> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.
>
> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,
> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he
> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.
>
> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my
> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My
> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program
> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately
> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information
> about it.)
>
> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all
> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a
> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?

 

[Shane]

Yes, a keylogger is one possibility. The actual possibilities are almost
endless and you can easily get to the point - probably well-advised,
actually, if you think undetected malware may be on your computer and have
already stolen card no.s - where the only sensible course is to format and
start again! After all, just because you found nothing, doesn't by any means
mean there is nothing there! It just means the crook/s might has a really
good tool for which there are no detections (hopefully only 'yet'!). It's
the old 'can't prove a negative' problem. In most cases it doesn't matter -
but if you money is being siphoned off...

There is no doubt - it would be illogical to believe otherwise - that there
are trojans or the like that are undetectable. You can buy rootkits priced
according to whether they are detected yet or if so, by how many programs.
All very much as you would expect, too, unfortunately, ie it's not that
unusual, rather it seems unlikely because it's an uncomfortable truth we
blank out.

Still, the likelihood is, if you have malware, that it *is* detectable.
Just, if you find nothing, doesn't mean it's clean, is all I want to stress.
Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of
catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when trojan
detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were
coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans, was
better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it
still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out
trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something that
also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good
idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to
see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice. If you
were talking about an NT system you'd want rootkit sniffers too, as they are
that much more specialised, and of which there are more every week, it
seems.

Good luck.


Shane


Justin Thyme wrote:
> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there
> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I
> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered
> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.
>
> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,
> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he
> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.
>
> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my
> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My
> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program
> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately
> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information
> about it.)
>
> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all
> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a
> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?
>
> TIA.
>
> Ken Bland

 

[oops!!]

Mike,

Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience, curious
to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create virtual credit
cards to be used on internet transactions.

We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or debit
card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those cards. We
also set a credit limit per card/transaction.

Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say for 100
Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or usually a little
bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions. I use that card for the
transaction that the system validates without any problems.

Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be charged
for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card numbers will no
longer be valid, or if they are the available credit is minimal, i.e.,
unusable.

The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.

Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I know
of)....???

Just adding some ideas.

Cheers,

Zee



"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:OtXHrjZxHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ken,
>
> I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe
> since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never to
> hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For example in
> restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device in to which
> they insert their card and then enter their authorising PIN with the
> waiter never touching the card.
>
> Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March when I
> bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via the web site
> of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I received an automated
> phone call from my cc company asking me to verify three recent
> transactions. No surprise I thought given the large payment I had just
> authorised however I was surprised to find the first and most recent
> transaction being queried was a payment to a casino in the West Indies (I
> assume an on-line casino) which had been refused and triggered the check.
> My cc company cancelled the card and the charge and all appeared OK and
> two days later I received my replacement card. What was of interest is
> that, believe it or not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself
> listening to him recount a near identical story. We compared notes and
> amazingly we had both bought laptops on-line from the same company
> immediately prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story
> and why I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud
> originated with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more
> likely a hacked web site.
>
>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?
>
> Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Mike Maltby
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there
>> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I
>> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered
>> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.
>>
>> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,
>> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he
>> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.
>>
>> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my
>> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My
>> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program
>> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately
>> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information
>> about it.)
>>
>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all
>> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a
>> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?
>

 

[Heather]

Hi Zee.....one thing you folks have that we don't is the pin number
after you press OK for the transaction. Seems a good idea to me. And
as Mike said, I was always handed the machine to do the transaction
myself, which I never thought about until now.

I will say that when I found a computer I checked my bank accounts and
my Visa card to make sure nothing extra was added. Nada.

Cheers....Heather

"oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uAehJ7ZxHHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Mike,
>
> Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience,
> curious to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create
> virtual credit cards to be used on internet transactions.
>
> We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or
> debit card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those
> cards. We also set a credit limit per card/transaction.
>
> Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say for
> 100 Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or
> usually a little bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions. I
> use that card for the transaction that the system validates without
> any problems.
>
> Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be
> charged for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card
> numbers will no longer be valid, or if they are the available credit
> is minimal, i.e., unusable.
>
> The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.
>
> Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I
> know of)....???
>
> Just adding some ideas.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zee
>
>
>
> "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
> news:OtXHrjZxHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Ken,
>>
>> I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe
>> since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never
>> to hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For
>> example in restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device
>> in to which they insert their card and then enter their authorising
>> PIN with the waiter never touching the card.
>>
>> Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March
>> when I bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via
>> the web site of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I
>> received an automated phone call from my cc company asking me to
>> verify three recent transactions. No surprise I thought given the
>> large payment I had just authorised however I was surprised to find
>> the first and most recent transaction being queried was a payment to
>> a casino in the West Indies (I assume an on-line casino) which had
>> been refused and triggered the check. My cc company cancelled the
>> card and the charge and all appeared OK and two days later I received
>> my replacement card. What was of interest is that, believe it or
>> not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself listening to him
>> recount a near identical story. We compared notes and amazingly we
>> had both bought laptops on-line from the same company immediately
>> prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story and why
>> I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud originated
>> with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more likely a
>> hacked web site.
>>
>>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?
>>
>> Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Mike Maltby
>> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there
>>> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I
>>> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our
>>> identically-numbered
>>> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.
>>>
>>> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a
>>> restaurant,
>>> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he
>>> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.
>>>
>>> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my
>>> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My
>>> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program
>>> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately
>>> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information
>>> about it.)
>>>
>>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all
>>> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a
>>> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?
>>
>
>

 

[Mike M]

oops!! <notme@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience,
> curious to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create
> virtual credit cards to be used on internet transactions.

Not that I am aware of. What we do have, as probably do you, is an online
verification system which for Visa is called Verified by Visa which
instead of using the three digit CCV number on the rear for card
verification (which is of course no security help whatsoever if the card
has been stolen, lost or copied) takes you from the e-tailer site to the
CC issuer's site where, on the display of a personalised display (to
circumvent copying or cloning) one enters a further code. The issuer
checks this against its records and if OK authorises the transaction and
returns you to the e-tailer's site. Sadly this is not yet used
universally here in the UK and I don't think in use on the site where I
bought the laptop.

> We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or
> debit card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those
> cards. We also set a credit limit per card/transaction.
>
> Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say
> for 100 Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or
> usually a little bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions.
> I use that card for the transaction that the system validates without
> any problems.
> Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be
> charged for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card
> numbers will no longer be valid, or if they are the available credit
> is minimal, i.e., unusable.
>
> The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.
>
> Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I
> know of)....???

Haven't clue and the system sounds very interesting and will hopefully be
adopted here in the UK. I know that in some locales including the US and
Ireland there is a similar system where one can purchase one time use
credit cards good for just the one transaction but I thought, probably
mistakenly, that these were used primarily by those without credit cards
rather than as a security feature.

> Just adding some ideas.
>
> Cheers,

And to you in return!
--
Mike

 

[Mike M]

Figgs,

The PIN number and, for Visa, the Verified by Visa system which is a sort
of on-line PIN (see my reply to Zee) helps cut fraud considerably but
sadly there are many sites that still rely solely on the three digit CCV
number on the rear of the card which is I feel a major weakness that needs
to be addressed.
--
Mike


Heather <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Zee.....one thing you folks have that we don't is the pin number
> after you press OK for the transaction. Seems a good idea to me. And
> as Mike said, I was always handed the machine to do the transaction
> myself, which I never thought about until now.
>
> I will say that when I found a computer I checked my bank accounts and
> my Visa card to make sure nothing extra was added. Nada.

 

[Joan Archer]

So far I have only found that Tesco use this system when I do my online
shopping.
I haven't so far come across any other sites that do, mind you I don't
really do that much online spending, that would involve having money to
spend <vbg>
Joan

Mike M wrote:
>
> Not that I am aware of. What we do have, as probably do you, is an
> online verification system which for Visa is called Verified by Visa
> which instead of using the three digit CCV number on the rear for card
> verification (which is of course no security help whatsoever if the
> card has been stolen, lost or copied) takes you from the e-tailer
> site to the CC issuer's site where, on the display of a personalised
> display (to circumvent copying or cloning) one enters a further code.
> The issuer checks this against its records and if OK authorises the
> transaction and returns you to the e-tailer's site. Sadly this is
> not yet used universally here in the UK and I don't think in use on
> the site where I bought the laptop.
>

 

[Justin Thyme]

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
: Yes, a keylogger is one possibility...

<Remainder snipped>

Many thanks to you for your clear reply, Shane, and to all the others who
commiserated with me and shared similar experiences (I'm starting to believe
this credit card fraud is more common than I hitherto thought.)

I didn't mention that my credit card company canceled the account at once
and established a new one, so for the present, the numbers aren't recorded
anywhere.

There had been four unauthorized charges, two sizeable ones to Toys "R" Us
and CVS. One charge was to Ancestry.com (and I hope the perp used it to run
a genealogy check on his own name) and one charge for merely $1.99. I
understand that this latter technique is used to verify the accuracy of the
information at hand, and in fact, sometimes donations are made to charitable
institutions for the same purpose. Two charges failed because the
three-digit check code number wasn't known or was incorrect (thank God for
favors like that!) All charges were initiated over the Internet.

To all, thank you once again.

Ken Bland

 

[Justin Thyme]

<Snipped down to Kaspersky>

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

: Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of
: catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when
trojan
: detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were
: coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans,
was
: better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it
: still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out
: trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something
that
: also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good
: idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to
: see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice.

========================

I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I disallow
avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from my computer.
This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast! may not be as good
as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in two days last week and,
like an old friend, I don't want to part with it.

I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing KAV but
that would probably mean a new registration number and starting completely
anew. I was under the impression that KAV could live on this computer with
avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even with avast! deactivated from the
startup list.

Ken Bland

 

[Shane]

Justin Thyme wrote:
> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of
>> catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when
>> trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that
>> alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically
>> targeting for trojans, was better than all of them. That's purely
>> because it was *that* good - and it still is. You might find
>> something that performs as well seeking out trojans, but you won't
>> find anything better and certainly not something that also happens
>> to find just about everything else too! It is always a good idea to
>> use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to
>> see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first
>> choice.
>
> ========================
>
> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I
> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from
> my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast!
> may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in
> two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want to part with
> it.
>
> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing
> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and
> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could
> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even
> with avast! deactivated from the startup list.
>

It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG and I
don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and - though recent
tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better than I think and more or
less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of them hold a candle to Kaspersky!
You can prefer Avast! (as many seem to, much to my bemusement), for the
interface. I hate the interface, but this is definately one of those areas
that is purely a matter of taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry
Ken, couldn't resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please
don't think even for a moment that they're in the same league!

Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install because it
thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason. I even tried the
NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just isn't compatible. I do have
Windows Defender running as part of the package, though it doesn't comfort
me to know it!

No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I really
don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I know these days
is that it still comes top in test after test, just as it used to and just
as it did when I ran tests of my own.

If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the cost
would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any more -
well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the best solution
for that particular problem.

There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If I had
such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it manually - but what
if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!

I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server 2008.
It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My beloved ancient
Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the Vista-compatible build of
Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since I've run Zone Alarem!

Again, good luck Ken.

Shane

 

[Mike M]

Why on earth were you even trying to install Kerio let alone Zone Alarm?
The built in two way firewall is more than adequate for most purposes
especially if sitting behind a NATed router (OK, I know you don't do
this). The firewall can be configured to block everything both in and out
unless explicitly permitted. As for AV you need to use a server AV rather
than a client AV and there are far less free server AVs than those for
clients.
--
Mike


Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Justin Thyme wrote:
>> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>
>>
>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance
>>> of catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days
>>> when trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated
>>> to that alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically
>>> targeting for trojans, was better than all of them. That's purely
>>> because it was *that* good - and it still is. You might find
>>> something that performs as well seeking out trojans, but you won't
>>> find anything better and certainly not something that also happens
>>> to find just about everything else too! It is always a good idea to
>>> use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to
>>> see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first
>>> choice.
>>
>> ========================
>>
>> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I
>> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from
>> my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast!
>> may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in
>> two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want to part with
>> it.
>>
>> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing
>> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and
>> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could
>> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even
>> with avast! deactivated from the startup list.
>>
>
> It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG
> and I don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and -
> though recent tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better
> than I think and more or less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of
> them hold a candle to Kaspersky! You can prefer Avast! (as many seem
> to, much to my bemusement), for the interface. I hate the interface,
> but this is definately one of those areas that is purely a matter of
> taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry Ken, couldn't
> resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please don't
> think even for a moment that they're in the same league!
> Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install
> because it thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason.
> I even tried the NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just
> isn't compatible. I do have Windows Defender running as part of the
> package, though it doesn't comfort me to know it!
>
> No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I
> really don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I
> know these days is that it still comes top in test after test, just
> as it used to and just as it did when I ran tests of my own.
>
> If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the
> cost would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any
> more - well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the
> best solution for that particular problem.
>
> There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If
> I had such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it
> manually - but what if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!
>
> I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server
> 2008. It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My
> beloved ancient Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the
> Vista-compatible build of Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since
> I've run Zone Alarem!
> Again, good luck Ken.
>
> Shane

 

[Shane]

Mike M wrote:
> Why on earth were you even trying to install Kerio let alone Zone
> Alarm? The built in two way firewall is more than adequate for most

Well, hopefully. But it is beta, isn't it Mike. Who knows which part'll stop
working, or not work correctly? I've caused plenty of crashes already! <vbg>


Shane

> purposes especially if sitting behind a NATed router (OK, I know you
> don't do this). The firewall can be configured to block everything
> both in and out unless explicitly permitted. As for AV you need to
> use a server AV rather than a client AV and there are far less free
> server AVs than those for clients.
>
>> Justin Thyme wrote:
>>> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>
>>>
>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance
>>>> of catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days
>>>> when trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated
>>>> to that alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not
>>>> specifically targeting for trojans, was better than all of them.
>>>> That's purely because it was *that* good - and it still is. You
>>>> might find something that performs as well seeking out trojans,
>>>> but you won't find anything better and certainly not something
>>>> that also happens to find just about everything else too! It is
>>>> always a good idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second
>>>> opinion - just as it is to see more than one doctor! - but
>>>> Kaspersky should be the first choice.
>>>
>>> ========================
>>>
>>> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I
>>> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed
>>> from my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although
>>> avast! may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two
>>> Trojans in two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want
>>> to part with it.
>>>
>>> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing
>>> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and
>>> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could
>>> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not
>>> even with avast! deactivated from the startup list.
>>>
>>
>> It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG
>> and I don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and -
>> though recent tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better
>> than I think and more or less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of
>> them hold a candle to Kaspersky! You can prefer Avast! (as many seem
>> to, much to my bemusement), for the interface. I hate the interface,
>> but this is definately one of those areas that is purely a matter of
>> taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry Ken, couldn't
>> resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please don't
>> think even for a moment that they're in the same league!
>> Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install
>> because it thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason.
>> I even tried the NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just
>> isn't compatible. I do have Windows Defender running as part of the
>> package, though it doesn't comfort me to know it!
>>
>> No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I
>> really don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I
>> know these days is that it still comes top in test after test, just
>> as it used to and just as it did when I ran tests of my own.
>>
>> If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the
>> cost would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any
>> more - well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the
>> best solution for that particular problem.
>>
>> There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If
>> I had such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it
>> manually - but what if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!
>>
>> I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server
>> 2008. It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My
>> beloved ancient Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the
>> Vista-compatible build of Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since
>> I've run Zone Alarem!
>> Again, good luck Ken.
>>
>> Shane

 

[shanebeatson@gmail.com]

Hi Ken,

Not sure if I owe you an apology or not! I'm testing everything under
the sun lately, and just re-installed XP Pro x64. As you may or may
not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit
systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and
nothing free - but this XP trial is just for one month (you can use
the very similar Server 2003 x64 trial for 6 months - amply
demonstrating how much more Microsoft feel they could make selling to
a business than to a home user, I feel!).

You do have the Windows Firewall, and it isn't that bad - but for
instance it fails Shields Up miserably! And of course we want an AV
anyway, these days, even if we can surf in relative safety for now. So
I just installed a trial of the latest Kaspersky Antivirus for 64-bit
Windows versions. It seemed to be going well but the moment it
installed I could no longer go online! I tried disabling features -
such as e-mail scanning and eventually all real-time protection, just
being satisfied with the ability to do a full scan, and update. But
no, still couldn't go online (despite the modem visibly healthy, the
diagnostic giving the thumbs up and both leds on green.

I didn't want to sidetrack into troubleshooting. I had been about to
do the LSP-thing but remembered System Restore. Not that I've used SR
much in XP, but when I have it has always worked flawlessly. This time
it failed.

So I uninstalled Kaspersky and got the internet connection back and
working perfectly. Installed Kaspersky, lost it, uninstalled
Kaspersky, got it back. I'm pretty disappointed.

Well, hope your card problems are sorted out now, anyway.


Shane




> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>
>
> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> : Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of
> : catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when
> trojan
> : detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were
> : coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans,
> was
> : better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it
> : still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out
> : trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something
> that
> : also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good
> : idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to
> : see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice.
>
> ========================
>
> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I disallow
> avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from my computer.
> This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast! may not be as good
> as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in two days last week and,
> like an old friend, I don't want to part with it.
>
> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing KAV but
> that would probably mean a new registration number and starting completely
> anew. I was under the impression that KAV could live on this computer with
> avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even with avast! deactivated from the
> startup list.
>
> Ken Bland

 

[Mike M]

> As you may or may
> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit
> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and
> nothing free

Avast! is free Shane.
--
Mike M


shanebeatson@gmail.com <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ken,
>
> Not sure if I owe you an apology or not! I'm testing everything under
> the sun lately, and just re-installed XP Pro x64. As you may or may
> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit
> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and
> nothing free - but this XP trial is just for one month (you can use
> the very similar Server 2003 x64 trial for 6 months - amply
> demonstrating how much more Microsoft feel they could make selling to
> a business than to a home user, I feel!).
>
> You do have the Windows Firewall, and it isn't that bad - but for
> instance it fails Shields Up miserably! And of course we want an AV
> anyway, these days, even if we can surf in relative safety for now. So
> I just installed a trial of the latest Kaspersky Antivirus for 64-bit
> Windows versions. It seemed to be going well but the moment it
> installed I could no longer go online! I tried disabling features -
> such as e-mail scanning and eventually all real-time protection, just
> being satisfied with the ability to do a full scan, and update. But
> no, still couldn't go online (despite the modem visibly healthy, the
> diagnostic giving the thumbs up and both leds on green.
>
> I didn't want to sidetrack into troubleshooting. I had been about to
> do the LSP-thing but remembered System Restore. Not that I've used SR
> much in XP, but when I have it has always worked flawlessly. This time
> it failed.
>
> So I uninstalled Kaspersky and got the internet connection back and
> working perfectly. Installed Kaspersky, lost it, uninstalled
> Kaspersky, got it back. I'm pretty disappointed.
>
> Well, hope your card problems are sorted out now, anyway.

 

[Shane]

Mike M wrote:
>> As you may or may
>> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit
>> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and
>> nothing free
>
> Avast! is free Shane.
>

Thanks Mike. So, as I recall, is AVG. I'm losing track now because of also
running the 64-bit Server 2k3, which AVG and others won't allow to run a
free version on because they assume you're a business. Yes, I am getting
hopelessly confused! I tried to find one for Server 2k8, but they wouldn't
allow the use of a Home, free, version on a Server OS. I was put out because
it's a beta and there's surely no reason a home user can't run a Server beta
for the purpose of learning about it? It's a combination of the 2 conditions
they allow free use for - Home and Education! What with running Servers 2k8,
2k3 x-64 and XP Pro x-64, I am losing it!

I've also got 2k8 Enterprise downloading, as I want to investigate whatever
is available in that version but not in Std. And so, par for the course it
seems, I'm downloading another 64-bit version! From clues on the web I have
now enabled SuperFetch - but still don't even get the ReadyBoost Properties
page - so maybe it is available in 2k8EE (though I doubt it)? I do know that
my new thumb drive is not ReadyBoost capable, but it seems easy enough to
enable it anyway (though quite likely with a deterioration of performance
rather than enhancement). Anyway I am interested to see the differences
between these various versions. There is a lot of new (to me) technology
lately and I'm eager to investigate!

I have already effectively decided I don't care for XP Pro x64 and have only
reinstalled it to compare it with Server 2k3 x64. Of the two I prefer the
latter. I almost see little gain in 64-bit versions. I guess it's in the
same league as the stability of the NT kernel over the 9x, which you do
eventually appreciate but maybe not at first. I do not think it is as
striking as the move from 16- to 32-bit.

So, thanks again, Mike. If I can use AVG I will, in preference to Avast!,
but I'll still owe you my thanks for jolting my memory!

Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4 weeks
(depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being able to shower
and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise the dishwasher makes
(too regular - so you find yourself tapping your feet etc, but it's
mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!). Anyway it's running atm
and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think I'll sing along with it! If I can
remember the words. Let's see
"Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!
Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and Norris
McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching the bridge over
the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"

Shane

 

[Joan Archer]

<g> Glad to hear you have your water back Shane, and don't worry we all
love you for your madness <g> apart from the fact that Mike was the only
one to remember my birthday yesterday so I'm going to sit in the corner
and sulk :-((
Joan



Shane wrote:
>snip>
> Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4
> weeks (depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being
> able to shower and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise
> the dishwasher makes (too regular - so you find yourself tapping your
> feet etc, but it's mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!).
> Anyway it's running atm and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think
> I'll sing along with it! If I can remember the words. Let's see
> "Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!
> Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and
> Norris McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching
> the bridge over the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"
>
> Shane

 

[Mike M]

I'm pleased to read that you've got running water back Shane and that you
no longer have to share the dog's bath or use the village pump whenever
you needed a shower or to brush your teeth.

As to all your playing with VMs especially with 2K8 I'm happy to leave
that to you. I'm so out of touch with stuff nowadays and I no longer
really want to be bothered with trying to keep up. Old age perhaps.
disillusionment, a fair bit and well, better things to do with my time
such as trying to sleep.

Enjoy your games. Oh, and why don't you try beta testing "officially"?
See https://connect.microsoft.com but you'll need a pissport <yuk>.

Mike


Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Mike. So, as I recall, is AVG. I'm losing track now because of
> also running the 64-bit Server 2k3, which AVG and others won't allow
> to run a free version on because they assume you're a business. Yes,
> I am getting hopelessly confused! I tried to find one for Server 2k8,
> but they wouldn't allow the use of a Home, free, version on a Server
> OS. I was put out because it's a beta and there's surely no reason a
> home user can't run a Server beta for the purpose of learning about
> it? It's a combination of the 2 conditions they allow free use for -
> Home and Education! What with running Servers 2k8, 2k3 x-64 and XP
> Pro x-64, I am losing it!
> I've also got 2k8 Enterprise downloading, as I want to investigate
> whatever is available in that version but not in Std. And so, par for
> the course it seems, I'm downloading another 64-bit version! From
> clues on the web I have now enabled SuperFetch - but still don't even
> get the ReadyBoost Properties page - so maybe it is available in
> 2k8EE (though I doubt it)? I do know that my new thumb drive is not
> ReadyBoost capable, but it seems easy enough to enable it anyway
> (though quite likely with a deterioration of performance rather than
> enhancement). Anyway I am interested to see the differences between
> these various versions. There is a lot of new (to me) technology
> lately and I'm eager to investigate!
> I have already effectively decided I don't care for XP Pro x64 and
> have only reinstalled it to compare it with Server 2k3 x64. Of the
> two I prefer the latter. I almost see little gain in 64-bit versions.
> I guess it's in the same league as the stability of the NT kernel
> over the 9x, which you do eventually appreciate but maybe not at
> first. I do not think it is as striking as the move from 16- to
> 32-bit.
> So, thanks again, Mike. If I can use AVG I will, in preference to
> Avast!, but I'll still owe you my thanks for jolting my memory!
>
> Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4
> weeks (depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being
> able to shower and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise
> the dishwasher makes (too regular - so you find yourself tapping your
> feet etc, but it's mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!).
> Anyway it's running atm and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think
> I'll sing along with it! If I can remember the words. Let's see
> "Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!
> Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and
> Norris McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching
> the bridge over the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"
>
> Shane

 

[Heather]

HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY, JOANIE!!

SORRY..... WE ALL FORGOT, BUT IT TRULY IS AN INSPIRATION TO SEE SOMEONE
THAT OLD BEING SO "SPRY" ON HERE......ROFL!!

KISSIES...FIGGS

"Joan Archer" <archer_joan@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:OllEHdO1HHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <g> Glad to hear you have your water back Shane, and don't worry we
> all love you for your madness <g> apart from the fact that Mike was
> the only one to remember my birthday yesterday so I'm going to sit in
> the corner and sulk :-((
> Joan
>
>
>
> Shane wrote:
>>snip>
>> Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4
>> weeks (depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being
>> able to shower and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise
>> the dishwasher makes (too regular - so you find yourself tapping your
>> feet etc, but it's mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!).
>> Anyway it's running atm and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think
>> I'll sing along with it! If I can remember the words. Let's see
>> "Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!
>> Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and
>> Norris McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching
>> the bridge over the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"
>>
>> Shane
>
>

 

[Joan Archer]

ROFL
You swine you I'll get you for that one <g> anyway I've got a new toy to
play with, my new external hard drive I can play around with Acronis True
Image now <g>

I only get kissies from you then, I got a big hug from Mike <g>
Joan


Heather wrote:
> HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY, JOANIE!!
>
> SORRY..... WE ALL FORGOT, BUT IT TRULY IS AN INSPIRATION TO SEE
> SOMEONE THAT OLD BEING SO "SPRY" ON HERE......ROFL!!
>
> KISSIES...FIGGS
>