microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:35:35 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:

>
>"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.

That's true. Which, as I said, requires a baseline and a thorough
understanding. Most users don't have that.

>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.

Yup.