SSupdater Not to be trusted.

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Kyle1420, Jan 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kyle1420

    Kyle1420 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    479
    Hey guys. I don't want this to turn into a flame thread as many members could possibly view this.

    I have found the test http://ssupdater.com/modules/Forums/index.php?showtopic=4423
    To be totally useless, Many of the files are wares files\corrupt or even WIN95 malware. For example, 142 and 499 are keygens.

    I posted within that thread telling them my results as i tested a large amount of those files inside of a VM. I was flamed, and then banned. You may read my discussions within that thread as QUOTES as my original posts were deleted.

    Don't trust SSU :thumbd:
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2009
  2. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Such files are generally not considered malicious by AVs; the only AV I know of that flags such files is Ikarus. Other AVs tend to miss such files or just flag the file based on its packers.

    If you look in every AV company's database, you do not see one keygen detection. Except for the sole exception of Ikarus.

    Using such samples does not accurately reflect what a person with a legit purpose of using an AV would expect from it ...
     
  3. Someone

    Someone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,106
    Is this also Comodo's view? Because I saw 3xist posting over there. Just curious.

    Thanks
     
  4. Kyle1420

    Kyle1420 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Posts:
    479
    @Someone;
    Hey Someone, Nah I'm just another user like you. 3xist (Josh) is also a user like you and me, We don't work for comodo. People that work for comodo have a "Comodo Staff" Avatar.

    @Techoutsider;
    All you have to do if your comfortable with testing is to test the files yourself.

    I have come up with a shortlist, (This is just a handfull, there may be more!)
    But honestly, It would take me too long to test all 500 files individualy on a fresh system 1 by 1.
    I found these results on a Winxp Home 32bit sp3 (inside VirtualBox);

    26 - Not malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    28 - Not malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    31 - Not malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    32 - Not malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    33 - Not Malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    37 - Not Malacious/ Corrupt
    142 - Not malacious/ Doesn't Perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.
    230 - Not Malacious/ Corrupt
    499 - Not Malacious/ Doesn't perform any harmful or any suspecious changes.

    Again, don't perform the tests if you aren't comfortable with testing.
     
  5. Someone

    Someone Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,106
    I thought Josh was a Global Moderator at Comodo's forums and so indirectly related to Comodo?

    Well anyway I agree with this:
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Hmmmm... nothing against SS but that forum seems childish.
     
  7. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,922
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  8. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,875
    Location:
    New England
    Agreed. This was discussed in much detail in that thread, so, no need to start all that again.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.