Archives Search Engine

Body:
Subject:
From:
(email address of poster)
List:
(limit search to one mailing list)
Date:
(e.g. 10 Jun 2005, Jun 2005, or 2005)
   Search tips

Searching for: +path:virus-discussion
Viewing 1-25 of 22,482 matches from 36,116,086 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next
1. RE: [VIRUS] Possible Norton conflict [1]
Hi Judith You can and should empty the Temporary Internet Files. I do it daily by first clicking on delete files and off-line content and then I click settings, view files and selectively delete those that were not already deleted. I say selectively because I still want to be able to get into some sites without reentering my ID and Password. However, it will not hurt to delete them all -- just means you may have to relog into password protected sites. Some virus are capable of harming the anti-virus
2. [VIRUS] Possible Norton conflict [1]
Hi George and Bob and everyone Have now scanned my computer 3 times using Stinger as suggested. Results were :- 1st scan - Number of clean files 34552 2nd scan - Number of clean files 34556 3rd scan - Number of clean files 34555 How can I find out what is the total number of files on my computer in order to establish if there are any other "dirty" files ? I'm concerned at the discrepancy in the number of clean files above. Is this a sign of another problem ? Re. Temporary Files - I do find it
3. [VIRUS] spam may become legal [1]
Thought you should see this article - if we allow the US gov't to legalize spam, then the criminal-hackers who concoct these viruses will have more opportunity to do whatever whenever they choose - after all, it's in order to proliferate spam that these robots run through the internet gathering e-mail addresses, opening sites, opening computers, taking whatever whenever. This behaviour will increase if spam is legalized since none of these inane souls would fear prosecutio
4. Re: [VIRUS] Klez [1]
In a message dated 6/24/2003 9:12:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, billiejo@gte.net writes: > Can anyone tell me who really sent the following email (with headers)? > These headers do not look like "normal" KLEZ headers when the infected party is using AOL. AOL inserts an "X-Apparently From" header that tells you who the actual infected person is when KLEZ uses its own email "program" to send itself out through AOL's mail system. Joan
5. Re: [VIRUS] What is this all about? [1]
Looks real to me. Rhonda Walelu Kanogisdi Sometimes dreams are wiser than waking Black Elk ~~ 1863- 1950 http://www.picturetrail.com/hummingbirdsings ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lana Renfro-Moye" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:43 PM Subject: [VIRUS] What is this all about? > I received this in my email this evening. > > After two years of being on line, I've never seen this before. > > Is this for real. > > Ylana > Stoneyfields Ran
6. [VIRUS] FW: New virus alert: W32/Bugbear.B-mm [1]
For those of you who do not subscribe to VirusEye George -----Original Message----- From: VirusEye@messagelabs.com [mailto:VirusEye@messagelabs.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:01 AM To: VirusEye Subscriber Subject: New virus alert: W32/Bugbear.B-mm Beware of the a new email-borne mass-mailing virus: On 4th June 2003, MessageLabs the email security company intercepted copies of a new mass-mailing virus called W32/Bugbear.B-mm, and intercepted the first copy originating from the United States. Nam
7. Re: [VIRUS] eliminating spam [1]
I agree - | Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [VIRUS] eliminating spam > > SuperGoogie Spam Filter v1.0.1 > http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,22868,tk,lg,00.as > Ruthlessly delete spam by asking e-mailers to register with you first. > > > Please be aware that these Challenge/response types of spam filters are not > supported by Rootsweb and in fact most list administrators will unsubscribe you > if you have an anti-spam program that requires people to reg
8. Re: [VIRUS] snow white [1]
Certainly hope this one is gone for good; and that its originators have been captured, AND sentenced to never touch another computer - [I'm an eternal optimist] Meanwhile we have many variations of KLEZ with which to contend; and others. So thought you would like to take a break and peruse the original Snow White story - here's one link to various versions of this sweet tale: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0709.html Here's hoping none of you have to contend wi
9. [VIRUS] Bugbear virus--new version [1]
Hi everyone! Just a heads-up: Kaspersky Virus News today says there's a new dangerous version of the bugbear virus, called Tanatos.b. Here's the URL to read about it: http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslist.html?id=52245 It's another reason to stay vigilant about updating anti-virus programs and careful about clicking on attachments. Also, to have your e-mail programs secure against backdoor vulnerability: this virus is capable of self-opening the attachment upon just seeing the e-mail message, without ev
10. Re: [VIRUS] spam may become legal [1]
When I clicked on the URL, I got "...Page could not be displayed" Sara ----- Original Message ----- From: "anne-ology" To: Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:36 PM Subject: [VIRUS] spam may become legal Thought you should see this article - if we allow the US gov't to legalize spam, then the criminal-hackers who concoct these viruses will have more opportunity to do whatever whenever they choose - after all,
11. Re: [VIRUS] FURTHER TO PREVIOUS NSW MESSAGE [1]
ROFL - I was kinda wondering when I saw the subject line! shirley ;) Norman Backhouse wrote: > I do not spell very well early in the day. > Norman Backhouse > > > >
12. Re: [VIRUS] Interesting article [1]
Shocking article - how these criminal-hackers think continues to astound me. I'm going to send this article to others; hopefully we can fight this one by fore-warning all to be ware. Here's hoping that no one gets caught in their evil web - | Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:49 PM Subject: [VIRUS] Interesting article > > Viruses are turning from just malicious to money-makers. > > Bob > > Virus turns PCs into spam machines > By Bob Sullivan, MSNBC > > Another version of the
13. RE: [VIRUS] Possible Norton conflict [1]
Hi Judith Once in IE I would go to TOOLS>INTERNET OPTIONS. Then I click on delete files and put a check in the box "delete offline content". Once that is finished, I click on settings, view files, then go up to the menu and click on view>details. There will be a column displayed that will give you the internet address that the cookie is for. That's how I control it. Double Click and some of the other cookies will only delete by doing this manual method. Regards George -----Original Message----- Fro
14. [VIRUS] Another Norton Update [1]
There is another Norton Definition Update out today. Ed Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat...
15. Re: [VIRUS] w1G: Fw: WARNING: We blocked a v...s* that was sent to you [*my a... [1]
In a message dated 6/5/2003 3:33:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, wmcauth05@juno.com writes: > Q. I've rec'd this message twice in 2 days. Do I have a problem. I don't > send (or open) attachments other than RW mail. > Thanx > > Walt > Walt- Nope--just delete it. Joan
16. Re: [VIRUS] Stubborn mIrc worm [1]
Many thanks, Anne. Much there for me to chew on..... Van ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne" To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [VIRUS] Stubborn mIrc worm > Thursday, June 19, 2003, 1:19:28 AM, Van wrote: > > > I have been infected with an mIrc worm that opens a KFGH program > > window and tries to dial up the net every time I boot up. I have > > tried following the Symantec instructions for eliminating the > > Backdoor
17. Re: [VIRUS] Possible Norton conflict [1]
Go to System Tools and Disc Defragmanter. Click on Analyze and View Report. You will find your total files there. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the total number of files as long as no infected files are found. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Akhurst" To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:43 PM Subject: [VIRUS] Possible Norton conflict : Hi George and Bob and everyone : : Have now scanned my computer 3 times usi
18. Re: [VIRUS] NORTON AV 2003 VIRUS SCANNING ENGINE MESSAGE [1]
Hi The following is from Woodys's Windows newsletter: "There's a new cumulative update for Internet Explorer 6, MS03-020/Q818529, that has caused problems for some people. This particular patch can be removed by using Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs applet, so if you apply all of the updates and something goes haywire, choose Start | Control Panel | Add or Remove Programs, and Remove 818529." I seem to remember that the last time there was trouble with a patch it was causing problems with the Norto
19. Re: [VIRUS] eliminating spam [1]
In a message dated 6/25/2003 3:35:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, laginnis@earthlink.net writes: SuperGoogie Spam Filter v1.0.1 http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,22868,tk,lg,00.as Ruthlessly delete spam by asking e-mailers to register with you first. Please be aware that these Challenge/response types of spam filters are not supported by Rootsweb and in fact most list administrators will unsubscribe you if you have an anti-spam program that requires people to register before you wi
20. Re: [VIRUS] viruses sent [1]
Sounds like someone has an infected computer, and this computer has some messages which are now being re-sent to various e-mail addresses also housed in that computer. Here's hoping that your AV program was up-to-date and your machine is still virus-free, anne-ology laginnis@earthlink.net | Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [VIRUS] Interesting article > > I think I just received (& deleted) this! > It had Application as the subject and a zip file attached.
21. [VIRUS] What is this all about? [1]
I received this in my email this evening. After two years of being on line, I've never seen this before. Is this for real. Ylana Stoneyfields Ranch Remember what your elders used to say, "Birds of a feather flock together." If you're an eagle, don't hang around chickens: Chickens Can't Fly! You can't soar with the Eagles if you hoot with the hoot owls. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Postmaster" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 5:49 PM Subject:
22. Re: [VIRUS] Re: VIRUS-DISCUSSION-D Digest V03 #156 & SPAM [1]
Too bad you don't have a delete key. Barb ----- Original Message ----- From: "2C the" To: Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: [VIRUS] Re: VIRUS-DISCUSSION-D Digest V03 #156 & SPAM > Did I get myself on the wrong list? > In this Digest I see messages about SPAM,SPAM,SPAM and more SPAM. > > Hey when I get that hungry, I go to the luncheon counter! > YES, for I have already signed up on the SPAM-L mailing list. > > Somewhere I read that
23. Re: [VIRUS] Symantic users beware [1]
Someone who looks an awful lot like "anne-ology" wrote: > For any of you using Symantic's products, you might want to peruse this article - > http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/326513 Good pointer! The exploit was fixed, per Jun 24 2003 5:08PM Here is some content: Symantec has replaced the current ActiveX Control on the Symantec Security Check website so that new visitors will not be affected by the exploit. Recent visitors to Symantec Security Check should revisit t
24. [VIRUS] PandaActive scan tick boxes [1]
Hi Everyone, Prior to starting a PandaVirus scan, the site automatically ticks all the Scan Option boxes except "Detect unknown viruses (heuristic)". Should I insert a tick in this box ? What does "heuristic" mean ? Many thanks and regards Judith
25. Re: [VIRUS] Virus Zip in file [1]
In a message dated 6/26/2003 6:19:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, edheral@heral.us writes: > Read the headers. This was NOT sent to you via rootsweb.com. It is a > common > thing for virus email to spoof the from address. If you look at the message > ID, you > will see that it was most likely someone @wanamaker.mail.atl.earthlink.net > which has the virus and sending it out with the forged headers. > Ed > Ed- It didn't come from or through RootsWeb but that is all I'll commit to. the earthlink
Viewing 1-25 of 22,482 matches from 36,116,086 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next

CPU seconds used 0.369944