wellies

I went to the forum of my own AV program to see if it could deal with this rootkit/bootkit. It can according enquiries made. It might be worth checking if the AV program of anyone's choice is capable of dealing with it. I'm also told that Hitman Pro 3.5.6 beta build 112 has added protection against it. I know it's a bold statement but I feel fairly confident that nothing will get onto the computer that could install the rootkit. If I'm right, it won't need detecting anyway. I sometimes think once malware has actually made it onto the computer and is in need of detection/removal, the protections may have partly failed already.

Are we hearing the true voice of the hopeful contestants? I'm not so sure now. I like talent shows but the recent highlighting of voice auto-tuning has put me off watching The X-Factor. The emotional hype and noisiness of the show almost put me off watching it. The voice auto-tuning talk has now tipped the balance. I'll be watching something else until I'm convinced auto-tuning isn't being used. Relevant article

Those are done in Xara Xtreme. Primarily a vector drawing program but it has quite a good capability in photo editing too. It's possible to import photos into it and shape them and apply effects to them. The first image is done by using the 3D tool to the photos and moving them around until they look right. The most challenging part was the making the reflection. The second image is 4 of the same photos placed on top of each other and then varying degrees of page curl added to each one. The result is then set against a background and given a degree of shadow to enhance the 3D effect. Edit: Sorry, I miscounted. It was 5 photos.

I used to turn out graphics but haven't done any new ones for a while. Some involved the use of photos. This is one that I always liked ..kind of 3D- ish: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/photobook.jpg also this one; http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/curly.jpg

Chrome or Chromium uses sandboxing, a layer of security that other browsers don't have. So in that respect you could say a browser based on Chromium is best. On the other hand the PDF Synapse has linked to looks to prove that IE is safer as regards protection from malicious sites. Then again, by default IE uses ActiveX, something that many class as a danger. Firefox must be a top runner. This too has a bad site warning feature and can also have extensions added, many of these being to do with browsing safety. No doubt Opera and Safari users could point out a few points about those browsers too. Personally, I think any of them can be safe if browsing sessions are run sandboxed. I believe that using Chrome/Chromium (that uses sandboxing) inside Sandboxie must keep a system as near as safe as possible from uninvited infections. I say uninvited because if you are tricked into purposely downloading what turns out to be malware, retrieving it from the sandbox and installing it, then running Chrome/Chromium inside a sandbox won't help in the slightest. If worried about that and the tests Synapse has linked to are the case, then a sandboxed IE might be best because you would be more likely to be warned not to download something considered bad or, even if you did either by accident or design, not to retrieve it from the sandbox.

A strange cloud formation. Taken on the south coast in the early evening http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/danglyclouds.jpg

Can't agree. Better than some and no worse than others. Published over a year old and fortunes can vary over a time but: Virus Bulletin : News - AV-Comparatives releases latest detection figures

Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, and the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh.

I've misplaced my 3D glasses Bob. I'll have to get some more. A pretty good rainbow here: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/rainbow.jpg

Sorry too but try typing false positive for any AV product into Google.

I can't speak for all of Norton's home software but I think the security suite from 2009 onwards is good. I stopped using it for a while when I went to Windows 7. I used a combination of Sphinx firewall control, MSE and (as always) Sandboxie. I found Sphinx a pain with it always asking for permissions and there were certain things about NIS that I missed (mentioned in the last post), so I went back to using it. I'm well into the second year now and can foresee a 3rd. True that it's not necessary as such because there are always free security programs ..but having tried many free and paid programs, I still prefer the current arrangement over anything else. NIS isn't expensive. A little over £22-00 (Amazon) for a 3 computer licence isn't bad. I use it on my own and Mrs.wellies's computer.

I like NIS 2010 very much. It has just done well over at AV-Comparatives, has it's own 'safe site' feature (equivalent to SiteAdvisor - WOT), it auto updates, automatically scans the computer for malware during computer idle time, has a password safe, a firewall that has or makes its own rules and I'm never asked any questions. I guess I'd be lax if that alone was relied on. Every security program can have a failure rate afterall ..and quite honestly, I don't believe any of them can keep up with the number of bits of malware that arrive daily on the Internet. For that reason, Sandboxie is used. So, in fact, Norton will only be called on to do its job if that fails. Sandboxie, like NIS, is another program that needs no care. Both programs just sit there quietly looking after the computer with only minimal intervention (the sandbox needs emptying once in a while). Just what I require of security programs these days. Just in case any of that should let me down, there's always an up to date disk image around. Dead simple no-brainer solutions. That must be why they suit me so well. :)

Yes it is. Varying reports on it but I haven't tried it myself.

It looks genuine but seems it would be done by examining participants browsing habits. Have a read of this thinkbroadband article and a few of the comments on it.

A master of disguise: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/greensect.jpg

I am (or maybe was) a confirmed Firefox user but presently flirting with the various offerings of Chrome/Chomium. Things do wander off from the original question a bit a bit don't they? Even so, it is all basically about trying Firefox 4 beta. Bound to get few more general comments about it as well. In direct answer to the original question: Yes I have tried Firefox 4 beta. It browses the Internet just like version 3.6 does. However, most of the extensions don't work. Not even Mr. Tech which, if working, might get all the others to work. I tried adding a line in about:config to disable the compatibility check but that didn't work either. The browser worked as expected other than that. The layout of the toolbars in Firefox 4.0 is a little different and the Extension Manager presentation has changed completely. I'm sure what's under the bonnet could be spoken about more but if it's installed, it's those points that will be immediately noticed. I didn't keep it on-board because of the extensions not working.

I don't think anyone is doubting the name and safety of Mozilla. It's just a worry to some that trying the software will affect the system in some way ..and if it's decided to go back, the moves made might not be so easy to reverse. That's more what the warnings are about I'd have thought. Most people possibly only want an advanced peek at what's coming up, rather than wanting to use the beta version full time. Fair enough I'd say. A natural curiosity. I haven't tried Firefox 4.0 beta outside of the sandbox but before Sandboxie, I did run beta versions of Firefox alongside of the released versions. From this, I know that when you start the beta version, it looks for and uses the Profile of the already installed Firefox version and promptly sets about disabling the extensions because they aren't compatible. So, when you go back to using the released version, the extensions will need re-enabling. Well, there are ways around all that but unless you have found out what they are know and what to do when extensions don't work, then there is need for warnings about using beta software. Only on that basis though. Not because the software is a buggy piece of rubbish. Far from it.

A couple of points come to mind for those wishing to try alpha/beta software but are wary of taking the risk. Does anyone use disk imaging? - If so, take a disk image before installing the software and when you decide you have seen or had enough of it, use the image to return to the computer to the state it was before the software was installed. This is the ultimate in system restore. Windows 7 includes a disk imaging function. How about sandboxing? - If you run Sandboxie, Firefox 4.0 beta can be installed inside the sandbox. This means it isn't installed to the system and doesn't affect Firefox 3.6. When you decide you have seen or had enough of using the beta, just empty the sandbox. Firefox 4.0 will be completely gone without any effect on Firefox 3.6. (I know this because I've done it.) Two good tools for those who like to experiment, take risks or try software.

It was my experience when repairing burnt printed circuit tracks that solder could eventually crack again. One strand of multi-core wire soldered across the gap (a bit like 5 amp fuse wire) made a more permanent job of it. All very much like micro-surgery.

I don't know anyone who might need a pocket watch but advertising in local newspaper might bring results. The only trouble being that advertising this way can sometimes be pricey. You'd lose some or all (if nothing sells) of the money you might have made by paying for the advert. I've been there! :) Some local papers have an 'advertise free' section if the item is priced below a certain amount. How about the one in your area? If it does, you could just advertise one of the watches (depending what you reckon they're worth) and keep on wheeling them out if you get more than one customer. Or you could advertise one each week. Different if you have to pay for all ads though. How about advertisement boards in newspaper shop windows? Some supermarkets have them too. They are usually inexpensive forms of advertising that can bring results. Taking them along to the car boot sale could be another option ..and don't let the price get knocked down too much.

A woodpecker taking a breather ..from pecking wood presumably :) http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/woodpecker-1.jpg

I did this one using Xara Xtreme's 'Bitmap Tracer'. It did a slightly better job than the mentioned DrawPlus 2. It looks like the program would probably make quite a good job of enlarging a 6x4 photo to A4 size. I think the increase in size shown here would be quite a bit more than what's needed for that: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/enlarge.jpg

I read that 'Blow Up 2' does convert the bitmap photo to a vector graphic in order to achieve the enlargement. I have tried that in a couple of programs in the past but they didn't give acceptable results. However, I was recently offered Serif DrawPlus 2 at a price that was difficult to refuse (around £10-00). I have done a couple of experiments with bitmap to vector conversions using this program and the results are surprisingly good. Using a best definition conversion makes the program run slowly and the larger the image is made, the slower it runs. A better computer might overcome that though. Nonetheless, it shows that conversion to vector can work better than I thought. I notice the price of 'Blow Up 2' is quite high and it no doubt does a top job. The £10-00 DrawPlus program could give an acceptable enlargement though. I can try and produce an example if you like, providing I can get my ageing comparatively low-spec computer to handle the detail within half an hour or so without the program hanging. :) A smallish image wouldn't be too bad.

Some images for enlargement benefit from being turned into vector drawings first. Then they can be enlarged without loss of definition. This isn't likely to work with detailed photos though. The vector conversion process can't usually produce a photo exactly. Loss of detail/pixelation might be reduced if you scan in the photos at a very high resolution (more detail to expand). You could also experiment with taking a close-up photo of the photo with a digital camera. This will give you an image with lots of pixels to play with. The end result is going to depend on the quality of the original photo and lighting though. There may be no ideal answer.

Does anybody know the state of play regarding PatchGuard in the 64 bit version of Windows 7? I realise that what applies to the 64 bit version of Vista right now probably also applies to Windows 7 but information found regarding PatchGuard on either 64 bit OS is a couple of years old. I'll be changing to Windows 7 later in the year but can't find definitive answers on the following: * Is the issue resolved and all third party security solutions are allowed near the kernel in order to protect it? * Will only some Microsoft approved third party products be allowed to get in and offer solid protection? * Will some security products only appear to protect but won't be doing so properly because of being excluded by PatchGuard? * Microsoft seem to say, perhaps rightly, that third party security software changing or hooking into the kernel with unapproved code can cause problems with system stability (crashes etc). Any opinions? * Have I got the wrong end of the stick altogether on this?