Unauthorized credit card use

July 13, 2007

Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there appeared

to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I thanked them

profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered cards in our

possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant, for

example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he may have

had, and that's a definite possibility.

I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my computer

(although I don't know how they might have got there). My suspicion was

raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program detected a Trojan horse

yesterday. (I regret that I immediately deleted the Trojan and cannot,

therefore, provide any information about it.)

Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all like a

keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a recommendation for

keylogger detection and removal?

TIA.

Ken Bland

--

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."

-- Alfred Adler (1870 - 1937)

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Ken,

I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe

since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never to

hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For example in

restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device in to which

they insert their card and then enter their authorising PIN with the

waiter never touching the card.

Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March when I

bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via the web site

of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I received an automated

phone call from my cc company asking me to verify three recent

transactions. No surprise I thought given the large payment I had just

authorised however I was surprised to find the first and most recent

transaction being queried was a payment to a casino in the West Indies (I

assume an on-line casino) which had been refused and triggered the check.

My cc company cancelled the card and the charge and all appeared OK and

two days later I received my replacement card. What was of interest is

that, believe it or not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself

listening to him recount a near identical story. We compared notes and

amazingly we had both bought laptops on-line from the same company

immediately prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story

and why I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud

originated with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more

likely a hacked web site.

> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?

Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.

Regards,

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:

> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there

> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I

> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered

> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

>

> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,

> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he

> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.

>

> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my

> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My

> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program

> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately

> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information

> about it.)

>

> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all

> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a

> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Yes, a keylogger is one possibility. The actual possibilities are almost

endless and you can easily get to the point - probably well-advised,

actually, if you think undetected malware may be on your computer and have

already stolen card no.s - where the only sensible course is to format and

start again! After all, just because you found nothing, doesn't by any means

mean there is nothing there! It just means the crook/s might has a really

good tool for which there are no detections (hopefully only 'yet'!). It's

the old 'can't prove a negative' problem. In most cases it doesn't matter -

but if you money is being siphoned off...

There is no doubt - it would be illogical to believe otherwise - that there

are trojans or the like that are undetectable. You can buy rootkits priced

according to whether they are detected yet or if so, by how many programs.

All very much as you would expect, too, unfortunately, ie it's not that

unusual, rather it seems unlikely because it's an uncomfortable truth we

blank out.

Still, the likelihood is, if you have malware, that it *is* detectable.

Just, if you find nothing, doesn't mean it's clean, is all I want to stress.

Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of

catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when trojan

detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were

coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans, was

better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it

still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out

trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something that

also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good

idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to

see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice. If you

were talking about an NT system you'd want rootkit sniffers too, as they are

that much more specialised, and of which there are more every week, it

seems.

Good luck.

Shane

Justin Thyme wrote:

> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there

> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I

> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered

> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

>

> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,

> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he

> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.

>

> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my

> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My

> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program

> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately

> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information

> about it.)

>

> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all

> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a

> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?

>

> TIA.

>

> Ken Bland

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Mike,

Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience, curious

to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create virtual credit

cards to be used on internet transactions.

We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or debit

card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those cards. We

also set a credit limit per card/transaction.

Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say for 100

Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or usually a little

bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions. I use that card for the

transaction that the system validates without any problems.

Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be charged

for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card numbers will no

longer be valid, or if they are the available credit is minimal, i.e.,

unusable.

The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.

Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I know

of)....???

Just adding some ideas.

Cheers,

Zee

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

news:OtXHrjZxHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Ken,

>

> I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe

> since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never to

> hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For example in

> restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device in to which

> they insert their card and then enter their authorising PIN with the

> waiter never touching the card.

>

> Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March when I

> bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via the web site

> of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I received an automated

> phone call from my cc company asking me to verify three recent

> transactions. No surprise I thought given the large payment I had just

> authorised however I was surprised to find the first and most recent

> transaction being queried was a payment to a casino in the West Indies (I

> assume an on-line casino) which had been refused and triggered the check.

> My cc company cancelled the card and the charge and all appeared OK and

> two days later I received my replacement card. What was of interest is

> that, believe it or not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself

> listening to him recount a near identical story. We compared notes and

> amazingly we had both bought laptops on-line from the same company

> immediately prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story

> and why I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud

> originated with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more

> likely a hacked web site.

>

>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?

>

> Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.

>

> Regards,

> --

> Mike Maltby

> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>

> Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:

>

>> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there

>> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I

>> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our identically-numbered

>> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

>>

>> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a restaurant,

>> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he

>> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.

>>

>> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my

>> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My

>> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program

>> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately

>> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information

>> about it.)

>>

>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all

>> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a

>> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?

>

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Hi Zee.....one thing you folks have that we don't is the pin number

after you press OK for the transaction. Seems a good idea to me. And

as Mike said, I was always handed the machine to do the transaction

myself, which I never thought about until now.

I will say that when I found a computer I checked my bank accounts and

my Visa card to make sure nothing extra was added. Nada.

Cheers....Heather

"oops!!" <notme@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:uAehJ7ZxHHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Mike,

>

> Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience,

> curious to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create

> virtual credit cards to be used on internet transactions.

>

> We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or

> debit card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those

> cards. We also set a credit limit per card/transaction.

>

> Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say for

> 100 Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or

> usually a little bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions. I

> use that card for the transaction that the system validates without

> any problems.

>

> Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be

> charged for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card

> numbers will no longer be valid, or if they are the available credit

> is minimal, i.e., unusable.

>

> The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.

>

> Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I

> know of)....???

>

> Just adding some ideas.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Zee

>

> "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

> news:OtXHrjZxHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Ken,

>>

>> I can't really help but do have a couple of comments. Here in Europe

>> since the introduction of chip 'n' pin card holders are urged never

>> to hand their cards to third parties when paying for goods. For

>> example in restaurants users are now presented with a handheld device

>> in to which they insert their card and then enter their authorising

>> PIN with the waiter never touching the card.

>>

>> Interestingly I went through the same trauma as yourself in March

>> when I bought a, for me, very expensive laptop for my daughter via

>> the web site of a fairly reputable UK dealer. Some hours later I

>> received an automated phone call from my cc company asking me to

>> verify three recent transactions. No surprise I thought given the

>> large payment I had just authorised however I was surprised to find

>> the first and most recent transaction being queried was a payment to

>> a casino in the West Indies (I assume an on-line casino) which had

>> been refused and triggered the check. My cc company cancelled the

>> card and the charge and all appeared OK and two days later I received

>> my replacement card. What was of interest is that, believe it or

>> not, when talking to a fellow UK MVP I found myself listening to him

>> recount a near identical story. We compared notes and amazingly we

>> had both bought laptops on-line from the same company immediately

>> prior to the fraudulent transaction. The moral of the story and why

>> I have mentioned it is that it is now clear that the fraud originated

>> with the e-tailer due to either a corrupt employee or more likely a

>> hacked web site.

>>

>>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this?

>>

>> Possibly but to be honest I suspect not.

>>

>> Regards,

>> --

>> Mike Maltby

>> mike.maltby@gmail.com

>>

>> Justin Thyme <enigma-40513@mypacks.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Quite recently I was alerted by my credit card company that there

>>> appeared to be several unusual charges on my account (for which I

>>> thanked them profusely). My wife and I have our

>>> identically-numbered

>>> cards in our possession, so I knew they hadn't been lost.

>>>

>>> I know well that when one hands his card to a server in a

>>> restaurant,

>>> for example, one temporarily loses all control over any security he

>>> may have had, and that's a definite possibility.

>>>

>>> I also know that there are keylogger programs that may exist on my

>>> computer (although I don't know how they might have got there). My

>>> suspicion was raised a notch when Alwil's avast! antivirus program

>>> detected a Trojan horse yesterday. (I regret that I immediately

>>> deleted the Trojan and cannot, therefore, provide any information

>>> about it.)

>>>

>>> Can a Trojan horse be responsible for this? Does it sound at all

>>> like a keylogger problem? And lastly, if so, does anyone have a

>>> recommendation for keylogger detection and removal?

>>

>

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

oops!! <notme@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Agreeing with all you posted but reading about your bad experience,

> curious to know if in UK you don't have a security system to create

> virtual credit cards to be used on internet transactions.

Not that I am aware of. What we do have, as probably do you, is an online

verification system which for Visa is called Verified by Visa which

instead of using the three digit CCV number on the rear for card

verification (which is of course no security help whatsoever if the card

has been stolen, lost or copied) takes you from the e-tailer site to the

CC issuer's site where, on the display of a personalised display (to

circumvent copying or cloning) one enters a further code. The issuer

checks this against its records and if OK authorises the transaction and

returns you to the e-tailer's site. Sadly this is not yet used

universally here in the UK and I don't think in use on the site where I

bought the laptop.

> We do, down here in this small Portugal, we can allocate a credit or

> debit card to this system, but we will never use the numbers on those

> cards. We also set a credit limit per card/transaction.

>

> Basically, when I want to buy something on the internet, let's say

> for 100 Euros, I generate a virtual card with that credit limit, or

> usually a little bit more to cover for bank or exchange commissions.

> I use that card for the transaction that the system validates without

> any problems.

> Because that virtual card is associated to my real one, I will be

> charged for that purchase directly, and those virtual credit card

> numbers will no longer be valid, or if they are the available credit

> is minimal, i.e., unusable.

>

> The system is called MBNet and is as safe as you cant get nowadays.

>

> Curious why it isn't being used in other countries (at least that I

> know of)....???

Haven't clue and the system sounds very interesting and will hopefully be

adopted here in the UK. I know that in some locales including the US and

Ireland there is a similar system where one can purchase one time use

credit cards good for just the one transaction but I thought, probably

mistakenly, that these were used primarily by those without credit cards

rather than as a security feature.

> Just adding some ideas.

>

> Cheers,

And to you in return!

--

Mike

July 13, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Figgs,

The PIN number and, for Visa, the Verified by Visa system which is a sort

of on-line PIN (see my reply to Zee) helps cut fraud considerably but

sadly there are many sites that still rely solely on the three digit CCV

number on the rear of the card which is I feel a major weakness that needs

to be addressed.

--

Mike

Heather <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Zee.....one thing you folks have that we don't is the pin number

> after you press OK for the transaction. Seems a good idea to me. And

> as Mike said, I was always handed the machine to do the transaction

> myself, which I never thought about until now.

>

> I will say that when I found a computer I checked my bank accounts and

> my Visa card to make sure nothing extra was added. Nada.

July 14, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

So far I have only found that Tesco use this system when I do my online

shopping.

I haven't so far come across any other sites that do, mind you I don't

really do that much online spending, that would involve having money to

spend <vbg>

Joan

Mike M wrote:

>

> Not that I am aware of. What we do have, as probably do you, is an

> online verification system which for Visa is called Verified by Visa

> which instead of using the three digit CCV number on the rear for card

> verification (which is of course no security help whatsoever if the

> card has been stolen, lost or copied) takes you from the e-tailer

> site to the CC issuer's site where, on the display of a personalised

> display (to circumvent copying or cloning) one enters a further code.

> The issuer checks this against its records and if OK authorises the

> transaction and returns you to the e-tailer's site. Sadly this is

> not yet used universally here in the UK and I don't think in use on

> the site where I bought the laptop.

>

July 14, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

: Yes, a keylogger is one possibility...

Many thanks to you for your clear reply, Shane, and to all the others who

commiserated with me and shared similar experiences (I'm starting to believe

this credit card fraud is more common than I hitherto thought.)

I didn't mention that my credit card company canceled the account at once

and established a new one, so for the present, the numbers aren't recorded

anywhere.

There had been four unauthorized charges, two sizeable ones to Toys "R" Us

and CVS. One charge was to Ancestry.com (and I hope the perp used it to run

a genealogy check on his own name) and one charge for merely $1.99. I

understand that this latter technique is used to verify the accuracy of the

information at hand, and in fact, sometimes donations are made to charitable

institutions for the same purpose. Two charges failed because the

three-digit check code number wasn't known or was incorrect (thank God for

favors like that!) All charges were initiated over the Internet.

To all, thank you once again.

Ken Bland

July 16, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

: Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of

: catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when

trojan

: detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were

: coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans,

was

: better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it

: still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out

: trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something

that

: also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good

: idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to

: see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice.

========================

I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I disallow

avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from my computer.

This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast! may not be as good

as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in two days last week and,

like an old friend, I don't want to part with it.

I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing KAV but

that would probably mean a new registration number and starting completely

anew. I was under the impression that KAV could live on this computer with

avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even with avast! deactivated from the

startup list.

Ken Bland

July 16, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Justin Thyme wrote:

> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>

>

> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of

>> catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when

>> trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that

>> alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically

>> targeting for trojans, was better than all of them. That's purely

>> because it was *that* good - and it still is. You might find

>> something that performs as well seeking out trojans, but you won't

>> find anything better and certainly not something that also happens

>> to find just about everything else too! It is always a good idea to

>> use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to

>> see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first

>> choice.

>

> ========================

>

> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I

> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from

> my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast!

> may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in

> two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want to part with

> it.

>

> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing

> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and

> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could

> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even

> with avast! deactivated from the startup list.

>

It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG and I

don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and - though recent

tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better than I think and more or

less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of them hold a candle to Kaspersky!

You can prefer Avast! (as many seem to, much to my bemusement), for the

interface. I hate the interface, but this is definately one of those areas

that is purely a matter of taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry

Ken, couldn't resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please

don't think even for a moment that they're in the same league!

Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install because it

thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason. I even tried the

NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just isn't compatible. I do have

Windows Defender running as part of the package, though it doesn't comfort

me to know it!

No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I really

don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I know these days

is that it still comes top in test after test, just as it used to and just

as it did when I ran tests of my own.

If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the cost

would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any more -

well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the best solution

for that particular problem.

There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If I had

such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it manually - but what

if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!

I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server 2008.

It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My beloved ancient

Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the Vista-compatible build of

Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since I've run Zone Alarem!

Again, good luck Ken.

Shane

July 16, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Why on earth were you even trying to install Kerio let alone Zone Alarm?

The built in two way firewall is more than adequate for most purposes

especially if sitting behind a NATed router (OK, I know you don't do

this). The firewall can be configured to block everything both in and out

unless explicitly permitted. As for AV you need to use a server AV rather

than a client AV and there are far less free server AVs than those for

clients.

--

Mike

Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Justin Thyme wrote:

>> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>

>>

>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance

>>> of catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days

>>> when trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated

>>> to that alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically

>>> targeting for trojans, was better than all of them. That's purely

>>> because it was *that* good - and it still is. You might find

>>> something that performs as well seeking out trojans, but you won't

>>> find anything better and certainly not something that also happens

>>> to find just about everything else too! It is always a good idea to

>>> use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to

>>> see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first

>>> choice.

>>

>> ========================

>>

>> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I

>> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from

>> my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast!

>> may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in

>> two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want to part with

>> it.

>>

>> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing

>> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and

>> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could

>> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even

>> with avast! deactivated from the startup list.

>>

>

> It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG

> and I don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and -

> though recent tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better

> than I think and more or less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of

> them hold a candle to Kaspersky! You can prefer Avast! (as many seem

> to, much to my bemusement), for the interface. I hate the interface,

> but this is definately one of those areas that is purely a matter of

> taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry Ken, couldn't

> resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please don't

> think even for a moment that they're in the same league!

> Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install

> because it thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason.

> I even tried the NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just

> isn't compatible. I do have Windows Defender running as part of the

> package, though it doesn't comfort me to know it!

>

> No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I

> really don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I

> know these days is that it still comes top in test after test, just

> as it used to and just as it did when I ran tests of my own.

>

> If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the

> cost would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any

> more - well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the

> best solution for that particular problem.

>

> There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If

> I had such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it

> manually - but what if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!

>

> I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server

> 2008. It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My

> beloved ancient Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the

> Vista-compatible build of Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since

> I've run Zone Alarem!

> Again, good luck Ken.

>

> Shane

July 17, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Mike M wrote:

> Why on earth were you even trying to install Kerio let alone Zone

> Alarm? The built in two way firewall is more than adequate for most

Well, hopefully. But it is beta, isn't it Mike. Who knows which part'll stop

working, or not work correctly? I've caused plenty of crashes already! <vbg>

Shane

> purposes especially if sitting behind a NATed router (OK, I know you

> don't do this). The firewall can be configured to block everything

> both in and out unless explicitly permitted. As for AV you need to

> use a server AV rather than a client AV and there are far less free

> server AVs than those for clients.

>

>> Justin Thyme wrote:

>>> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>

>>>

>>> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>> Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance

>>>> of catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days

>>>> when trojan detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated

>>>> to that alone were coming out, Kaspersky, which was not

>>>> specifically targeting for trojans, was better than all of them.

>>>> That's purely because it was *that* good - and it still is. You

>>>> might find something that performs as well seeking out trojans,

>>>> but you won't find anything better and certainly not something

>>>> that also happens to find just about everything else too! It is

>>>> always a good idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second

>>>> opinion - just as it is to see more than one doctor! - but

>>>> Kaspersky should be the first choice.

>>>

>>> ========================

>>>

>>> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I

>>> disallow avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed

>>> from my computer. This I am quite reluctant to do because, although

>>> avast! may not be as good as some of the others, it did catch two

>>> Trojans in two days last week and, like an old friend, I don't want

>>> to part with it.

>>>

>>> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing

>>> KAV but that would probably mean a new registration number and

>>> starting completely anew. I was under the impression that KAV could

>>> live on this computer with avast!, but apparently it cannot, not

>>> even with avast! deactivated from the startup list.

>>>

>>

>> It's obviously your choice Ken. But let's be in no doubt - I use AVG

>> and I don't like Avast! Now maybe that is a matter of opinion and -

>> though recent tests seem to support my feeling - Avast! is better

>> than I think and more or less interchangeable with AVG. Neither of

>> them hold a candle to Kaspersky! You can prefer Avast! (as many seem

>> to, much to my bemusement), for the interface. I hate the interface,

>> but this is definately one of those areas that is purely a matter of

>> taste (I have it, you lot don't - ROFL! <sorry Ken, couldn't

>> resist!>). And you can prefer it for the price - but please don't

>> think even for a moment that they're in the same league!

>> Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 beta today. AVG won't install

>> because it thinks I'm a business! AntiVir won't for the same reason.

>> I even tried the NAV 2005 I still have laying around, but it just

>> isn't compatible. I do have Windows Defender running as part of the

>> package, though it doesn't comfort me to know it!

>>

>> No, its been a while since I installed any AV other than AVG, so I

>> really don't know what the Kaspersky experience is of late. All I

>> know these days is that it still comes top in test after test, just

>> as it used to and just as it did when I ran tests of my own.

>>

>> If you thought you had malware active and stealing your money, the

>> cost would be irrelevent. But if you don't think that's the case any

>> more - well...I don't run it myself, you know? I just know it's the

>> best solution for that particular problem.

>>

>> There's a certain amount of gambling involved to, don't you think? If

>> I had such a malware I'd be sorely tempted to try to remove it

>> manually - but what if I didn't succeed? I guess it'd be tough on me!

>>

>> I think I'll go get the current KAV - see if it'll install in Server

>> 2008. It should do. Software written for Vista seems to do. My

>> beloved ancient Kerio 2.1.5 won't install in it - I had to get the

>> Vista-compatible build of Zone Alarm - it is literally *years* since

>> I've run Zone Alarem!

>> Again, good luck Ken.

>>

>> Shane

August 1, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Hi Ken,

Not sure if I owe you an apology or not! I'm testing everything under

the sun lately, and just re-installed XP Pro x64. As you may or may

not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit

systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and

nothing free - but this XP trial is just for one month (you can use

the very similar Server 2003 x64 trial for 6 months - amply

demonstrating how much more Microsoft feel they could make selling to

a business than to a home user, I feel!).

You do have the Windows Firewall, and it isn't that bad - but for

instance it fails Shields Up miserably! And of course we want an AV

anyway, these days, even if we can surf in relative safety for now. So

I just installed a trial of the latest Kaspersky Antivirus for 64-bit

Windows versions. It seemed to be going well but the moment it

installed I could no longer go online! I tried disabling features -

such as e-mail scanning and eventually all real-time protection, just

being satisfied with the ability to do a full scan, and update. But

no, still couldn't go online (despite the modem visibly healthy, the

diagnostic giving the thumbs up and both leds on green.

I didn't want to sidetrack into troubleshooting. I had been about to

do the LSP-thing but remembered System Restore. Not that I've used SR

much in XP, but when I have it has always worked flawlessly. This time

it failed.

So I uninstalled Kaspersky and got the internet connection back and

working perfectly. Installed Kaspersky, lost it, uninstalled

Kaspersky, got it back. I'm pretty disappointed.

Well, hope your card problems are sorted out now, anyway.

Shane

> <Snipped down to Kaspersky>

>

> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OUPBcmZxHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> : Otherwise, running Kaspersky Antivirus is probably the best chance of

> : catching any baddies you suspect you may have. Back in the days when

> trojan

> : detection was the latest thing and programs dedicated to that alone were

> : coming out, Kaspersky, which was not specifically targeting for trojans,

> was

> : better than all of them. That's purely because it was *that* good - and it

> : still is. You might find something that performs as well seeking out

> : trojans, but you won't find anything better and certainly not something

> that

> : also happens to find just about everything else too! It is always a good

> : idea to use more than one AV tool, for a second opinion - just as it is to

> : see more than one doctor! - but Kaspersky should be the first choice.

>

> ========================

>

> I tried, Shane, but it seems that Kaspersky is not satisfied that I disallow

> avast! from running, it wants avast! completely removed from my computer.

> This I am quite reluctant to do because, although avast! may not be as good

> as some of the others, it did catch two Trojans in two days last week and,

> like an old friend, I don't want to part with it.

>

> I know I could uninstall avast! and reinstall it later after testing KAV but

> that would probably mean a new registration number and starting completely

> anew. I was under the impression that KAV could live on this computer with

> avast!, but apparently it cannot, not even with avast! deactivated from the

> startup list.

>

> Ken Bland

August 1, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

> As you may or may

> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit

> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and

> nothing free

Avast! is free Shane.

--

Mike M

shanebeatson@gmail.com <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ken,

>

> Not sure if I owe you an apology or not! I'm testing everything under

> the sun lately, and just re-installed XP Pro x64. As you may or may

> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit

> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and

> nothing free - but this XP trial is just for one month (you can use

> the very similar Server 2003 x64 trial for 6 months - amply

> demonstrating how much more Microsoft feel they could make selling to

> a business than to a home user, I feel!).

>

> You do have the Windows Firewall, and it isn't that bad - but for

> instance it fails Shields Up miserably! And of course we want an AV

> anyway, these days, even if we can surf in relative safety for now. So

> I just installed a trial of the latest Kaspersky Antivirus for 64-bit

> Windows versions. It seemed to be going well but the moment it

> installed I could no longer go online! I tried disabling features -

> such as e-mail scanning and eventually all real-time protection, just

> being satisfied with the ability to do a full scan, and update. But

> no, still couldn't go online (despite the modem visibly healthy, the

> diagnostic giving the thumbs up and both leds on green.

>

> I didn't want to sidetrack into troubleshooting. I had been about to

> do the LSP-thing but remembered System Restore. Not that I've used SR

> much in XP, but when I have it has always worked flawlessly. This time

> it failed.

>

> So I uninstalled Kaspersky and got the internet connection back and

> working perfectly. Installed Kaspersky, lost it, uninstalled

> Kaspersky, got it back. I'm pretty disappointed.

>

> Well, hope your card problems are sorted out now, anyway.

August 1, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

Mike M wrote:

>> As you may or may

>> not know it is difficult getting AV or firewalls for the 64-bit

>> systems and Vista - or at least there is little apparent choice and

>> nothing free

>

> Avast! is free Shane.

>

Thanks Mike. So, as I recall, is AVG. I'm losing track now because of also

running the 64-bit Server 2k3, which AVG and others won't allow to run a

free version on because they assume you're a business. Yes, I am getting

hopelessly confused! I tried to find one for Server 2k8, but they wouldn't

allow the use of a Home, free, version on a Server OS. I was put out because

it's a beta and there's surely no reason a home user can't run a Server beta

for the purpose of learning about it? It's a combination of the 2 conditions

they allow free use for - Home and Education! What with running Servers 2k8,

2k3 x-64 and XP Pro x-64, I am losing it!

I've also got 2k8 Enterprise downloading, as I want to investigate whatever

is available in that version but not in Std. And so, par for the course it

seems, I'm downloading another 64-bit version! From clues on the web I have

now enabled SuperFetch - but still don't even get the ReadyBoost Properties

page - so maybe it is available in 2k8EE (though I doubt it)? I do know that

my new thumb drive is not ReadyBoost capable, but it seems easy enough to

enable it anyway (though quite likely with a deterioration of performance

rather than enhancement). Anyway I am interested to see the differences

between these various versions. There is a lot of new (to me) technology

lately and I'm eager to investigate!

I have already effectively decided I don't care for XP Pro x64 and have only

reinstalled it to compare it with Server 2k3 x64. Of the two I prefer the

latter. I almost see little gain in 64-bit versions. I guess it's in the

same league as the stability of the NT kernel over the 9x, which you do

eventually appreciate but maybe not at first. I do not think it is as

striking as the move from 16- to 32-bit.

So, thanks again, Mike. If I can use AVG I will, in preference to Avast!,

but I'll still owe you my thanks for jolting my memory!

Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4 weeks

(depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being able to shower

and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise the dishwasher makes

(too regular - so you find yourself tapping your feet etc, but it's

mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!). Anyway it's running atm

and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think I'll sing along with it! If I can

remember the words. Let's see

"Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!

Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and Norris

McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching the bridge over

the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"

Shane

August 2, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

<g> Glad to hear you have your water back Shane, and don't worry we all

love you for your madness <g> apart from the fact that Mike was the only

one to remember my birthday yesterday so I'm going to sit in the corner

and sulk :-((

Joan

Shane wrote:

>snip>

> Incidentally we have water again! Can't drink it for another 2 - 4

> weeks (depending on who you listen to), but it is luxurious being

> able to shower and run the washing machine. Usually I hate the noise

> the dishwasher makes (too regular - so you find yourself tapping your

> feet etc, but it's mindless, a bit like reciting gibberish rhymes!).

> Anyway it's running atm and it's a glorious sound! In fact I think

> I'll sing along with it! If I can remember the words. Let's see

> "Squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-a-squish-a-squirt-squish-a-squirt!

> Squirt-a-squish-a-squish-a-squirt-a..."...something about Ross and

> Norris McWhirter??? Like I said, nonsense! Gibberish! Like watching

> the bridge over the Kwai blowing up, "Madness!...Madness!"

>

> Shane

August 2, 2007

Re: Unauthorized credit card use

I'm pleased to read that you've got running water back Shane and that you

no longer have to share the dog's bath or use the village pump whenever

you needed a shower or to brush your teeth.

As to all your playing with VMs especially with 2K8 I'm happy to leave

that to you. I'm so out of touch with stuff nowadays and I no longer

really want to be bothered with trying to keep up. Old age perhaps.

disillusionment, a fair bit and well, better things to do with my time

such as trying to sleep. :-)

Enjoy your games. Oh, and why don't you try beta testing "officially"?

See https://connect.microsoft.com but you'll need a pissport <yuk>.

Mike

Shane <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Mike. So, as I recall, is AVG. I'm losing track now because of

> also running the 64-bit Server 2k3, which AVG and others won't allow

> to run a free version on because they assume you're a business. Yes,

> I am getting hopelessly confused! I tried to find one for Server 2k8,

> but they wouldn't allow the use of a Home, free, version on a Server

> OS. I was put out because it's a beta and there's surely no reason a

> home user can't run a Server beta for the purpose of learning about

> it? It's a combination of the 2 conditions they allow free use for -

> Home and Education! What with running Servers 2k8, 2k3 x-64 and XP

> Pro x-64, I am losing it!

> I've also got 2k8 Enterprise downloading, as I want to investigate

> whatever is available in that version but not in Std. And so, par for

> the course it seems, I'm downloading another 64-bit version! From

> clues on the web I have now enabled SuperFetch - but still don't even

> get the ReadyBoost Properties page - so maybe it is available in

> 2k8EE (though I doubt it)? I do know that my new thumb drive is not

> ReadyBoost capable, but it seems easy enough to enable it anyway

> (though quite likely with a deterioration of performance rather than

> enhancement). Anyway I am interested to see the differences between

> these various versions. There is a lot of new (to me) technology

> lately and I'm eager to investigate!

> I have already effectively decided I don't care for XP Pro x64 and

> have only reinstalled it to compare it with Server 2k3 x64. Of the

> two I prefer the latter. I almost see little gain in 64-bit versions.

> I guess it's in the same league as the stability of the NT kernel

> over the 9x, which you do eventually appreciate but maybe not at

> first. I do not think it is as striking as the move from 16- to

> 32-bit.

> So, thanks again, Mike. If I can use AVG I will, in preference to

> Avast!, but I'll still owe you my thanks for jolting my memory!