Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by acr1965, Jul 28, 2011.
Here is a link to their web page-
looks like their main focus is on Linux architecture and not windows . I tried to download the 64 version and it says it it does not exist. Well time to wait and hope there is something promising there
Thanks for the info. I see Zoner is listed on the icsa web site if that means anything. Their android antivirus looks very popular in the android market.
looks like the download link is broken, so I emailed their support.
considering they employ a virus writer to write their anti-virus, i wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot barge pole, regardless of whether it's free or not.
I'm using Android Version and this product is simple and good, with a nice GUI. 5*
Don't take it personal, but what you're writing here is exactly what a "smart" faker would do. Take into account that your signature is COMPLETELY out-of-date and that you've not been the most active user here. I don't even recognize you from my whole time here at Wilders.
Again, just food for thought.
This is just my opinion...
Be nice, raven. No need to sound harsh.
Darn mislabelled it then.
I tried the GNOME on-demand scanner, but it turns out I need the real-time suite, which is unwanted.
Really I tried to be, and my sincere apologies to PintoX, I've just seen this too many times.
If you carry the torch of truth, there will always be more than a a few folks who get their beards singed. Happens every time.
Per Satchel Paige, "Never apologize & never look back (someone might be gaining on you)".
Well my philosophy is I stand wholeheartedly for everything I say and do until I'm proven wrong. In swedish direct-translation it would be called cocky humbleness.
I'm also running the android version on my phone at the moment. I don't see any questionable behavior. Perhaps people could state more clearly what they feel is wrong with Zoner?
No need to quote an old Usenet discussiontrashing thread between you, 4Q and Dustin BugHunter (and more) but has Benny actually released viri into the wild?
Isn't there a distinction needed between PoC coders and 'F.U. real world' coders?
Or are you convinced of Slammer involvement?
i have no idea if he released men into the wild.
he certainly published viruses, and some of those viruses did find their way into the wild. to say that he didn't release his viruses into the wild is just his way of trying to weasel out of responsibility for the harm he caused.
but just because he wasn't the one actively spreading them (which we will probably never know for sure) doesn't mean he doesn't bare responsibility for them. he put them into the hands of those who did spread them.
blah, blah, blah. people like to trot out the proof of concept claim as if that absolves them of what they've done.
wm/concept happened to be a fairly successful word macro virus that cost businesses a fair amount of money to recover from, and as the name suggests it was also a proof of concept.
proof of concept doesn't mean safe or harmless, it doesn't mean you can hand it out like candy, all it means is that no one has ever done it before. as such, proof of concept is a non sequitur when evaluating someone's actions. it doesn't matter if something is a proof of concept, what matters is what the person does with that proof of concept - benny published them so everyone could get their hands on them. he might as well have handed them out like candy.
Excuse me, mr Etymology. I'll try to use the Oxford dictionary from now on. Jeez.
It boils down to responsible disclosure, right? Disclosing stuff in such a way so it can't be used by the unethical-minded?
But since when did you start wielding the 'ethics hammer' so firmly?
Reading on your blog; "...someone who has himself quite possibly unwittingly aided the bad guys who made conficker", I wonder, did you once hand out candy or just raw sugar?
Or was it only some vulnerability disclosure which, as you have written yourself, 'is incomparable with malware disclosure' .
But then again, might be potentially just as damaging... Or is that also blah, blah, blah?
no, the disclosure debate is about software vulnerabilities, not malware.
viruses are a fundamental and unavoidable part of general purpose computing platforms.
the benefits that are arguably derived from the disclosure of vulnerabilities, helping to eliminate the mistake that produced the vulnerability and helping to raise awareness so that we avoid making the same mistakes in future, cannot apply to that which is not a mistake.
perhaps if you were more familiar with my possible contribution you wouldn't need to ask such ridiculous questions. see this post http://anti-virus-rants.blogspot.com/2009/04/teaching-bad-dogs-new-tricks.html
i made the mistake (which i apologized for) of thinking a particular type of trick was already being used and so felt free to mention it in public. i made that mistake once. i've been much more careful since then, biting my tongue on multiple occasions.
writing and publishing viruses for years is in no way comparable to the mistake i made. i can think of no credible scenario where that behaviour can even be called an honest mistake.
Got links for Win7 version
Many other links can be found here
Found their name listed at
links not working for now ...maybe they are updating it
but anyone has tried online sandbox service they offering !!!!
i did but the report received on my email was empty
PS : got it