where is 1.1666 ??

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by cupez80, Jul 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 1 of 2
  1. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    617
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    why nod32 updates jump from 1.1665 to 1.1667 ?
     
    cupez80, Jul 19, 2006
    #1
  2. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    who knows - maybe you missed one?
    - updates are cumulative so if you didn't get it then it is not necessary at all.

    Cheers :)
     
    NOD32 user, Jul 19, 2006
    #2
  3. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    mm..but that's strange anyway. Nothing on ESET official website about it.
    http://www.eset.com/support/updates.php

    From 1.1665 it jumps to 1.1667. No info about 1.1666. Is it a mistake? :eek: o_O
    Or ESET don't like to have 666 in their signature database? :D :D
     
    pykko, Jul 19, 2006
    #3
  4. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    Wouldn't complain about anybody for wanting to stamp that out would you - like a rhinoceros on a spot fire :blink: :eek: :D
     
    NOD32 user, Jul 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    ROFLMAO :D :blink: :D
     
    Blackspear, Jul 19, 2006
    #5
  6. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    666 is a risky number. On one occasion is saw on some internet forum guy speaking of an elder lady requesting refund. Reason - one file has length of exactly 666 bytes…
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2006
    mrtwolman, Jul 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Eldar

    Eldar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    2,126
    Location:
    Vilvoorde (Belgium)
    Don't know why, but I got 1.1668. :)
    Got it all setup as to Blackspear's configuration thread. :thumb:
     

    Attached Files:

    Eldar, Jul 19, 2006
    #7
  8. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Well, "665" and "667" are called the neighbour of the beast. Which means those numbers should have been avoided as well. :eek:
     
    Firecat, Jul 19, 2006
    #8
  9. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    OMG, you're right! I didn't thought to that. Hope they'll remove them too. :D :D :eek:
     
    pykko, Jul 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Suggers

    Suggers Guest

    Suggers, Jul 19, 2006
    #10
  11. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    That's what I was going to guess..whoever names 'n releases them...was simply supersticious.

    Long as you got at least one update past that..nothing to lose sleep over.
     
    YeOldeStonecat, Jul 19, 2006
    #11
  12. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    617
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    LOL :D digital supersticious
     
    cupez80, Jul 19, 2006
    #12
  13. agoretsky

    agoretsky Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,033
    Location:
    California
    Hello,

    This version number was skipped in deference to customers who may feel uncomfortable seeing it appear in their software.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky
     
    agoretsky, Jul 19, 2006
    #13
  14. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    thx for the official answer. :D :)

    Btw, agoretsky you have 66 posts here...another 6 added there and.. :eek: :blink: :D :D
     
    pykko, Jul 20, 2006
    #14
  15. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    I found it, I found it, I found it.... finally, I've been hunting all over the internet today... :blink: ;) :D

    :D :D :D
     
    Blackspear, Jul 20, 2006
    #15
  16. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    funny. :D :D they are afraid of this number. :p
     
    pykko, Jul 20, 2006
    #16
  17. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    heheh :D :D
     
    NOD32 user, Jul 20, 2006
    #17
  18. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    :) I think your making that up :p :p
     
    NOD32 user, Jul 20, 2006
    #18
  19. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    You know 666 could be directly linked to 29A virus writing gang... 666d equals to 0x29a ...:rolleyes:
     
    mrtwolman, Jul 20, 2006
    #19
  20. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    I'd believe that - no doubt whatsoever
     
    NOD32 user, Jul 20, 2006
    #20
  21. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,662
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada

    funny is a different way of putting it. You don't have to agree with other people's beliefs to respect them. While I don't have a problem with that number, I don't have a problem with people who do - their wishes to avoid numbers which have symbolic meaning (of anything), is something they are entitled to have just like a sports fan's belief that their team is superior to another - one thing that is sure to profer debate... wouldn't you agree?
     
    webyourbusiness, Jul 20, 2006
    #21
  22. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Yes, I agree! Everyone is free to believe what he/she whishes. ;)
     
    pykko, Jul 21, 2006
    #22
  23. Ngwana

    Ngwana Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Posts:
    156
    Location:
    Glasgow, United Kingdom
    I did not think this thread will get so far: Not to break forum rules - the 'Holy Bible' makes reference to 'mark of the beast' as 666, since when is 1666 = 666?:D
     
    Ngwana, Jul 21, 2006
    #23
  24. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Simple, if anything contains the number 666, the number is to be feared. And 1666 contains 666. :ninja: :ouch:
     
    Firecat, Jul 21, 2006
    #24
  25. alglove

    alglove Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    Houston, Texas, USA
    No, no, no. 1666 is feared because it marks the death of Albert VI of Bavaria.
    It is still too painful in parts of southern Germany, so Eset was wise to avoid it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2006
    alglove, Jul 21, 2006
    #25
Page 1 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...