Virus Warning

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe Bloggs
  • Start date Start date
J

Joe Bloggs

Kaspersky Anti-Virus found a nasty in a file that may have been
recommended here (I can't remember where I heard of it).

The downloaded file was "setup_service_controller_XPv2.2.61.zip ",
which supposedly allowed user management of Windows services.
Kaspersky idenitified it as TrojanDropper.Win32.Small.gt.
 
Kaspersky Anti-Virus found a nasty in a file that may have been
recommended here (I can't remember where I heard of it).

The downloaded file was "setup_service_controller_XPv2.2.61.zip ",
Click to expand...

In which group did you see this file?
 
Joe said:
Kaspersky Anti-Virus found a nasty in a file that may have been
recommended here (I can't remember where I heard of it).

The downloaded file was "setup_service_controller_XPv2.2.61.zip ",
which supposedly allowed user management of Windows services.
Kaspersky idenitified it as TrojanDropper.Win32.Small.gt.
Click to expand...

You might have seen it mentioned in microsoft.public.windowsxp. The app
is called "Service Controller XP".
 
You might have seen it mentioned in microsoft.public.windowsxp.
Click to expand...

"microsoft.public.windowsxp" is the root for several other groups. In which
"particular" group did you see it mentioned?
 
Vrodok said:
"microsoft.public.windowsxp" is the root for several other groups. In which
"particular" group did you see it mentioned?
Click to expand...

Go to http://groups.google.com and put this in the search box (including
the quotes):
"service controller xp". You will get a list of all the particular groups.

Why is it *so* important that you know which exact group? Just curious.
 
"microsoft.public.windowsxp" is the root for several other groups. In which
"particular" group did you see it mentioned?
Click to expand...

I don't read any of those groups. If I didn't see it here then it
wasn't on Usenet. Or it may have been on the same site as something
mentioned here.
 
Go to http://groups.google.com and put this in the search box (including
the quotes):
"service controller xp". You will get a list of all the particular groups.

Why is it *so* important that you know which exact group? Just curious.
Click to expand...

It is *so* important for the *simple* reason that I do *not* with to be "led
off on a (the proverbial) 'wild goose' chase". A certain nrews-group was
mentioned, but I find that-particular group does *not* exist (as named).

I'm sure you would not wish to grab "all new headers" within groups to which
you had never-before subscribed, then search thru all messages, in these new
groups. Guess what; neither would I. Would have, thereby, been quite nice if
the original poster had extended this same courtesy to everyone else, as he had
to *himself*.
 
Vrodok said:
I'm sure you would not wish to grab "all new headers" within groups to which
you had never-before subscribed, then search thru all messages, in these new
groups. Guess what; neither would I. Would have, thereby, been quite nice if
the original poster had extended this same courtesy to everyone else, as he had
to *himself*.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot of unnecessary work to me. Geez, you had the name of
the program, all you had to do was use the web. As I said, use
groups.google.com. Remember, google is your friend...
 
Vrodok said:
It is *so* important for the *simple* reason that I do *not* with to be "led
off on a (the proverbial) 'wild goose' chase". A certain nrews-group was
mentioned, but I find that-particular group does *not* exist (as named).
Click to expand...

Let me say one more thing, all I did was ask if it *might* have been in
a group such as "microsoft.public.windowsxp". If you perform the actual
search as I suggested, you would see about 5 different groups and most
of them have to do with windows xp. So, I did not want to get specific
on purpose. Enough.
 
BarryTone said:
Sounds like a lot of unnecessary work to me. Geez, you had the name of
the program, all you had to do was use the web. As I said, use
groups.google.com. Remember, google is your friend...
Click to expand...

Lololol. Gotta remember this is a *self-confessed* ***Troll*** so he
obviously *wants* to **misread** your post and complain about *fictitious*
and *spurious* **problems**.

I love trolls. Do you think he's got fluorescent hair?

Ain't Google Advanced Groups Search just great, eh? - if only people knew
how to use it properly. What a wasted resource

Here you go Vrodok,
http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_group_search
:-))

..... still chuckling ...
 
Mr. F says "Hi said:
Lololol. Gotta remember this is a *self-confessed* ***Troll*** so he
obviously *wants* to **misread** your post and complain about *fictitious*
and *spurious* **problems**.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know he's a troll, but he tries to sound so serious. It's
actually kind of fun...
 
Sounds like a lot of unnecessary work to me. Geez, you had the name of
the program, all you had to do was use the web.
Click to expand...

You intimated a file, posted *somewhere* in the newsgroups, was infected. When
pressed for the "location" of said file, you lied, covered your a**, then tried
to dispose of the situation.

In my humble opinion, you are nothing more than a "bait & switch 'artist'",
a.k.a. a "common BS-er".

[- FLUSH -]
 
Pretty strange tangent there.
Cool! Now go **** yourself.
Click to expand...

It might have been one of those cases of therapeutic redirection. (When
pissed off at one's boss, or cow-orkers, or family, etc, to redirect that
frustration into an arena safe from serious repercussion, unleashing on
a random anon target.)
 
omega said:
It might have been one of those cases of therapeutic redirection. (When
pissed off at one's boss, or cow-orkers, or family, etc, to redirect that
frustration into an arena safe from serious repercussion, unleashing on
a random anon target.)
Click to expand...

Or, just possibly, a way to say "get lost".
 
BarryTone said:
It might have been one of those cases of therapeutic redirection. [...]
Click to expand...

Or, just possibly, a way to say "get lost".
Click to expand...

My posting was kind of unclear, sorry. I wasn't referring at all to
your comment (where you ended the thing with a "Bye, fine, **** off.")
I was referring to the whole aggressive tangent that Vrodok took up.
It made no sense that the ostensible point of quarrel (the newsgroup
name thingy) could have really mattered. Thus the redirection theory;
(filed under "humans are not logical creatures.")
 
omega said:
I was referring to the whole aggressive tangent that Vrodok took up.
It made no sense that the ostensible point of quarrel (the newsgroup
name thingy) could have really mattered. Thus the redirection theory;
(filed under "humans are not logical creatures.")
Click to expand...

Yep. It appears that they become more aggressive when confronted with
clear logic.

They are a lot like terrorists, in that they thrive on the confusion factor.

What I find interesting, is you now see *multiple trolls* assuming the
same identity. This gives the additional false appearance of a
complicated personality at work.

Personally, they are like spammers to me. Total scum.
 
BarryTone said:
What I find interesting, is you now see *multiple trolls* assuming the
same identity. This gives the additional false appearance of a
complicated personality at work.
Click to expand...

One of the weirdest trools I've ever paid attention to, named "the
Entity," it did that weird mix. There were two people, sharing posting
for a pair of primary personas. Then one of those two people used about
four additional minor personas. Then one of those minor personas, it was
such a compelling character (an "evil church lady"), that there became an
unclear number of other people who posted using its identity. It was all
very confusing, of course. And strange. The main redeeming factor was that
the Entity spent most of its energies within a newsgroup dedicated to
supporting those sorts of pastimes...
 
Pretty strange tangent there.
Click to expand...

Someone-or-other states, in this group, that a certain file is infected.
However, when (initially) asked for the "where-abouts" of this file, the
original poster not only failed to "point in the general direction", but
appears to "beg out" & seemed to infer of [a] file-abscence. If there
was no ("infected") file then why say so in the first place?

Although I did not say so earlier (one is left wondering if the original-poster
has simple comprehension of such things), I do very-much like
"discombooberating" files which are suspect, to find out what makes them
"tick". The "bait & switch 'artist'" comment refered to one (orig'l poster) who
gets-up someone's hopes, then suddenly mentions non-availability.

Not a strange tangent (imho; ymmv) at all.
 
BarryTone said:
It might have been one of those cases of therapeutic redirection. [...]
Click to expand...

Or, just possibly, a way to say "get lost".
Click to expand...

My posting was kind of unclear, sorry. I wasn't referring at all to
your comment (where you ended the thing with a "Bye, fine, **** off.")
I was referring to the whole aggressive tangent that Vrodok took up.
Click to expand...

See my reply to your other post, please.
 
Back
Top