How to determine if Spector Pro Spyware is running on my computer?

[Sebastian G.]

Kayman wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Kayman wrote:
>>
>>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>> ^^^^^
>> Proof that you're an idiot.
>
> Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.


Another proof that you're an idiot. You're claiming trivial scientific facts
as solely my facts, which is exactly your lack of arguments.


>> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
>> absence of obvious signs.
>>
> Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.


Yet another proof that you're lacking arguments.

>> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
>> integrity.
>
> I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...


I do. And interestingly most of them know what they're doing wrong, and
typically beg for the consequences not happening.

>> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
>> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
>> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
>
> Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
> someone, somewhere, may be happy."


If you would bother to understand what an universal trojan horse is (and
feel ashame that you ever dared operating a computer without the most basic
knowledge), then you might get a clue where to place reasonable assumptions.
A compromised system, by definition, remains compromised until it returns
into a well-defined state. Changing the state based on assumptions about the
current state can't achieve that. But well, that's just trivial math...

[Donna]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:55:18 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
> Oh, so the "problem" wasn't what you claimed it to be in your first
> post.

Why so suspicious.

Actually, in hindsight, I wish I knew how programs figure out exactly who
is running them. This Spector program, which I apparently don't have on my
system based on the help here, apparently wires back home who is using it.

How does it do that? (Is this a right group to ask that question?)

It's a privacy spying computer security internet issue.

I'm assuming it keys off the MAC ID, which can easily be changed.

In general, how does a program (such as Spector) know EXACTLY who is using
it and on what computer? Is it the MAC ID or something else that it keys
off of?

D

[Donna]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 08:50:12 -0700, Donna wrote:

> In general, how does a program (such as Spector) know EXACTLY who is using
> it and on what computer? Is it the MAC ID or something else that it keys
> off of?

And better yet, could we all foil such keyloggers simply by changing
whatever it is that it uses to key off of?

[Jim Watt]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:16:51 +0200, "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de>
wrote:

<snip>

>And if the malware is an universal trojan horse, the system will remain
>infected, albeit appearing clean. So stop claiming the contrary. Most
>malware implementations are universal trojan horses.

Are these ridden by universal soldiers?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[Sebastian G.]

G. Morgan wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> And if the malware is
>
> [slap]
>
> I should have listened to Kayman when he advised to ignore you. Better late
> than never.


Why do such idiots even come here for discussion if they can't stand arguments?

[jim]

Sebastian G. wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>
>>> And if the malware is
>>
>> [slap]
>>
>> I should have listened to Kayman when he advised to ignore you.
>> Better late
>> than never.
>
>
> Why do such idiots even come here for discussion if they can't stand
> arguments?


wow... do you guys just come home drink a bottle of whisky then logon to
alt.this.thats

[Kayman]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:22:41 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:

> Kayman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
>>
>>> Kayman wrote:
>>>
>>>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>>> ^^^^^
>>> Proof that you're an idiot.
>>
>> Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.
>
> Another proof that you're an idiot. You're claiming trivial scientific facts
> as solely my facts, which is exactly your lack of arguments.
>
You don't have to be so hostile if you feel the post is not suitable to
your tastes. You seem to be susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or
circumstances of others. Try to keep your emotions in check; You would
screw up the context of anything for your purpose of argument. Not an
intelligent approach.
You arrogant, pretentious and condescending swine.
>
>>> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
>>> absence of obvious signs.
>>>
>> Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.
>
> Yet another proof that you're lacking arguments.

Well, you're not very original. You're so full of **** I doubt any of your
bodily cavity are functioning (this explains why you can't stick your
useless messages anywhere and continue polluting newsgroups).
"You half-witted insignificant gob of rancid mucus."
(Courtesy: the good people from Monty Python).

>>> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
>>> integrity.
>>>
>> I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...
> I do. And interestingly most of them know what they're doing wrong, and
> typically beg for the consequences not happening.
>
LOL, I just feel off the oil drum I'm sitting on. Any true self-respecting
outback person would rip off your head and **** in your neck!
You probably met somebody called Herr or Frau Kraut living in the 'Wannsee'
area which you as Berlin Insulaner consider JWD or janz weit draussen.
(For the non-Krauts; Wannsee = a lake in the Berlin area, Insulaner =
referred to the denizens of Berlin due to the isolation caused during the
early stages of the cold war, janz weit draussen = beyond the black stump
or outback).

>>> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
>>> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
>>> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
>>
>> Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
>> someone, somewhere, may be happy."
>
> If you would bother to understand what an universal trojan horse is (and
> feel ashame that you ever dared operating a computer without the most basic
> knowledge), then you might get a clue where to place reasonable assumptions.
> A compromised system, by definition, remains compromised until it returns
> into a well-defined state. Changing the state based on assumptions about the
> current state can't achieve that. But well, that's just trivial math...

Rubbish (see my previous post in this thread)!
What *you* don't understand is that Berlin ain't the center of the
universe. Herr Adolph didn't succeed nor will you.

The reason non-technical people listing their problems in (pertinent)
newsgroups is because they're crying out for help and guidance; Something
you never ever provide except hideous snipes, insults and encrypted
remarks. The good people residing/working in remote areas don't need your
empty rhetoric; They are mostly working with limited resources. All they
care about to get their machine running again and that's where David's
Multi-AV *is* the next best thing to re-install the OS [PERIOD]!
They don't give damn about your overbearing bunk because it's just not
feasible for them to do anything more 'sophisticated'. Flattening/wiping
the HDD and re-installing the OS would most probably shut them off from the
rest of the world for good or at least until professional help is
available, which in some instances could take many months.

Heck, to the horror of some German car mechanics ("das geht doch nicht" -
"you can't do that"), we used bananas to "lubricate" the gearbox of our VW
bus which kept us going to the next garage which was about 2000 miles away.
If it was up to those morons we'd still be in the middle of nowhere
(Africa).

[Bill Kearney]

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:69h69mF31vkatU2@mid.dfncis.de...
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>>
>> Your advice is bogus, at best.
>
> Calling trivial facts bogus is the reason why you should better shut up.

Yeah, right. Why continue to post your useless drivel? You're not actually
helping the people asking the question. What's the point? Make yourself
feel better? All you're doing is making an ass of yourself. Ah well,
someone had to say it.

[John Mason Jr]

Kayman wrote:
<snip>
> The reason non-technical people listing their problems in (pertinent)
> newsgroups is because they're crying out for help and guidance; Something
> you never ever provide except hideous snipes, insults and encrypted
> remarks. The good people residing/working in remote areas don't need your
> empty rhetoric; They are mostly working with limited resources. All they
> care about to get their machine running again and that's where David's
> Multi-AV *is* the next best thing to re-install the OS [PERIOD]!
> They don't give damn about your overbearing bunk because it's just not
> feasible for them to do anything more 'sophisticated'. Flattening/wiping
> the HDD and re-installing the OS would most probably shut them off from the
> rest of the world for good or at least until professional help is
> available, which in some instances could take many months.
>
<snip>


SG normally raises the same point, and you might not like it but it is
true.

If a machine has been compromised/infected, and you rely on signature
based cleaning/detection methods then you cannot be sure you are not
still compromised.

The correct way to recover is to restore from known good media, and then
make sure that you patch the vulnerability that allowed the compromise
in the first place

If you accept the risk that you may still be compromised then go ahead
and use signature based solutions.


John

[David H. Lipman]

From: "John Mason Jr" <notvalid@cox.net.invalid>


| <snip>
|
| SG normally raises the same point, and you might not like it but it is
| true.
|
| If a machine has been compromised/infected, and you rely on signature
| based cleaning/detection methods then you cannot be sure you are not
| still compromised.
|
| The correct way to recover is to restore from known good media, and then
| make sure that you patch the vulnerability that allowed the compromise
| in the first place
|
| If you accept the risk that you may still be compromised then go ahead
| and use signature based solutions.
|
| John
|

First you have to define "compramised".

Is a system compramised if you have a Gain/Gator malware infection or NYB virus on a FAT32
based system ?


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Kayman]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:28:12 -0400, John Mason Jr wrote:

> Kayman wrote:
> <snip>
>> The reason non-technical people listing their problems in (pertinent)
>> newsgroups is because they're crying out for help and guidance; Something
>> you never ever provide except hideous snipes, insults and encrypted
>> remarks. The good people residing/working in remote areas don't need your
>> empty rhetoric; They are mostly working with limited resources. All they
>> care about to get their machine running again and that's where David's
>> Multi-AV *is* the next best thing to re-install the OS [PERIOD]!
>> They don't give damn about your overbearing bunk because it's just not
>> feasible for them to do anything more 'sophisticated'. Flattening/wiping
>> the HDD and re-installing the OS would most probably shut them off from the
>> rest of the world for good or at least until professional help is
>> available, which in some instances could take many months.
>>
> <snip>
>
>
> SG normally raises the same point, and you might not like it but it is
> true.
>
> If a machine has been compromised/infected, and you rely on signature
> based cleaning/detection methods then you cannot be sure you are not
> still compromised.
>
> The correct way to recover is to restore from known good media, and then
> make sure that you patch the vulnerability that allowed the compromise
> in the first place
>
> If you accept the risk that you may still be compromised then go ahead
> and use signature based solutions.
>

John,
Please read (or re-read) my post dated 20-May-08 10:28:12PM in this thread
:-)

[Sebastian G.]

Bill Kearney wrote:

> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:69h69mF31vkatU2@mid.dfncis.de...
>> Bill Kearney wrote:
>>
>>>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>>>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>>> Your advice is bogus, at best.
>> Calling trivial facts bogus is the reason why you should better shut up.
>
> Yeah, right. Why continue to post your useless drivel? You're not actually
> helping the people asking the question.


I do, by pointing out bogus advise.

[Sebastian G.]

David H. Lipman wrote:


> First you have to define "compramised".


trivial: system is not in a well defined state

> Is a system compramised if you have a Gain/Gator malware infection or NYB virus on a FAT32
> based system ?


Gain/Gator is not malware, at least it shows no sign of being so. For the
NYB virus, it definitely is compromised, since it's not in a wel-defined
state anymore. You could at most detect what programs it has changed, but
hardly which settings and data were modified.

Then again, a FAT32-based should already be considered as a big security
problem that was most likely already exploited.

[John Mason Jr]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "John Mason Jr" <notvalid@cox.net.invalid>
>
>
> | <snip>
> |
> | SG normally raises the same point, and you might not like it but it is
> | true.
> |
> | If a machine has been compromised/infected, and you rely on signature
> | based cleaning/detection methods then you cannot be sure you are not
> | still compromised.
> |
> | The correct way to recover is to restore from known good media, and then
> | make sure that you patch the vulnerability that allowed the compromise
> | in the first place
> |
> | If you accept the risk that you may still be compromised then go ahead
> | and use signature based solutions.
> |
> | John
> |
>
> First you have to define "compramised".
>
> Is a system compramised if you have a Gain/Gator malware infection or NYB virus on a FAT32
> based system ?

yes and the habits that caused the infection, may have resulted in other
currently undetected malware on the machine.


I do believe that there is a use for malware detection/removal software,
but that the risks are not well explained in a manner that is
understandable to the average user.

John

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
>> First you have to define "compramised".
|
| trivial: system is not in a well defined state
|
>> Is a system compramised if you have a Gain/Gator malware infection or NYB virus on a
>> FAT32 based system ?
|
| Gain/Gator is not malware, at least it shows no sign of being so. For the
| NYB virus, it definitely is compromised, since it's not in a wel-defined
| state anymore. You could at most detect what programs it has changed, but
| hardly which settings and data were modified.
|
| Then again, a FAT32-based should already be considered as a big security
| problem that was most likely already exploited.

I think you are COMPLETELY wrong.

Gain/Gator is adware spyware and it is malware.

NYB is a simple boot sector infector. The data and the system is NOT compramised. We are
not talking about a Backdoor Trojan, Password stealer or a multi-facted Trojan using rootkit
techniques.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Sebastian G.]

David H. Lipman wrote:


> I think you are COMPLETELY wrong.
>
> Gain/Gator is adware spyware and it is malware.


Aside from some few spurios claims, there's currently no indication for
that. I'd still consider it as typically undesired software, since it
implements functionality which actively breaks the normal usage of its
hosting software.

> NYB is a simple boot sector infector.


Which implies that it had root privileges.

> The data and the system is NOT compramised. We are
> not talking about a Backdoor Trojan, Password stealer or a multi-facted Trojan using rootkit
> techniques.

Wrong, we're talking about exactly this, since such software has most likely
compromised the system due to the very same security vulnerability NYB had
used, or has even dropped NYB in first place. Even further, until you do a
complete comparison against a trusted base, there's no indication that the
malware is exactly and solely the known variant of NYB. Thus, the system
should be clearly considered as compromised.

But considering that you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader, it's painfully
obvious that you have no clue about security.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
>> I think you are COMPLETELY wrong.
>>
>> Gain/Gator is adware spyware and it is malware.
|
| Aside from some few spurios claims, there's currently no indication for
| that. I'd still consider it as typically undesired software, since it
| implements functionality which actively breaks the normal usage of its
| hosting software.
|
>> NYB is a simple boot sector infector.
|
| Which implies that it had root privileges.
|

No, it does not.


>> The data and the system is NOT compramised. We are
>> not talking about a Backdoor Trojan, Password stealer or a multi-facted Trojan using
>> rootkit techniques.
|
| Wrong, we're talking about exactly this, since such software has most likely
| compromised the system due to the very same security vulnerability NYB had
| used, or has even dropped NYB in first place. Even further, until you do a
| complete comparison against a trusted base, there's no indication that the
| malware is exactly and solely the known variant of NYB. Thus, the system
| should be clearly considered as compromised.
|
| But considering that you're abusing MSOE as a newsreader, it's painfully
| obvious that you have no clue about security.

Your POV is all wrong. It is not the ssytem of concern, its the data. The system has no
value, the data on the system has worth and value. You said "...since it's not in a
wel-defined state anymore..." but legitimate software can also change the state. it is the
data's safety that leads to the conclusion that a system is compramised. If a system is
compramised the dat, not the system, is at risk.

I am not abusing MSOE. I use it in combination with Fidolook and it makes up for MSOE's
short comings. Don't change the subject! What you are doing is redirection.

NYB is well defined, constrained and finite. The system is NOT compramised, it doesn't have
"priveledges". It is easily removed and the data is is not at-risk on an infected media. A
system with NYB does not get compramised. On the otherhand a system with a password
stealing trojan is indeed, compramised.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Sebastian G.]

David H. Lipman wrote:


>>> NYB is a simple boot sector infector.
> |
> | Which implies that it had root privileges.
> |
>
> No, it does not.


It does. Writing to the boot sector requires either write access to
\Device\PhysicalDriveX or \Device\VolumeX\DR0, both of which imply
Administrator group membership, or SeRestorePrivilege, which is granted only
to Administrator group, or would be equivalent to Administrator privileges
(since one could change ACLs or overwrite system binaries on the raw disk).

> Your POV is all wrong. It is not the ssytem of concern, its the data. The system has no
> value, the data on the system has worth and value.


The system integrity has direct implications on all data, both the stored
ones and the processes ones. Where exactly is access to my private Pr0n
collection a bigger issue than the system forwarding my entered online
banking password to some Ukraine stranger?

> You said "...since it's not in a

> wel-defined state anymore..." but legitimate software can also change the state.


Hint: What's the difference between "state" and "well-defined" state?

> it is the data's safety that leads to the conclusion that a system is
> compramised.

Nonsense. A system can be compromised without having changed any data yet,
though the data are still in danger that such a thing happens in the future.


> I am not abusing MSOE. I use it in combination with Fidolook and it makes up for MSOE's
> short comings.


Such, like, a header line longer than 8192 byte triggering a direct buffer
overflow and therefore immediate compromise just by marking (not even
reading) a posting?

> NYB is well defined, constrained and finite.


The necessary circumstances aren't, unless you're discussing purely
artificial setups.

[Jim Watt]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:05:18 -0400, John Mason Jr
<notvalid@cox.net.invalid> wrote:

>I do believe that there is a use for malware detection/removal software,
>but that the risks are not well explained in a manner that is
>understandable to the average user.

I don't think that either David Lipman or myself
are 'average users'.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

[PeroPeroHop]

where's Brendon?

"Donna" <donnaohl26@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TiRXj.8983$nl7.1206@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
> might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.
>
> I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.
>
> Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
> if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?