microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin

"Straight Talk" wrote in message
news:9u5ct3pf7c04vnkkj3ut9k0f5ft72kfqj0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:35:37 -0400, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> wrote:
>
>>Straight Talk wrote:
>
>>> Trial and error against malware is a common but very stupid approach.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
> Not really.
>
>>It depends entirely on the severity of the infestation.
>
> Precisely. A severity you cannot determine without having a baseline.
>
>>I won't spend hours and hours on a troubled workstation, but if I can
>>pretty easily
>>remove a not-very-invasive piece of malware or two, I simply do so.
>
> And how exactly do you verify that the machine is now back in a
> reliable state?

If you know what changes a malware made, you
can often reverse those changes and get the system
back to as reliable as it was before the malware hit.

Yes...it is that 'if' that is the bugger. Many malwares
allow communication outside the system so you no
longer know exactly what changes were made and
it is time to flatten and rebuild if you desire any sense
of confidence in its integrity.