Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.

Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.

I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
Rebooted.

Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.

Suggestions please.

Currently Malwarebytes
1.70.0.1100

e.g. cannot access
http://www.malwarebytes.org/

RecentlyOrLately wrote:
> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>
> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>
> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
> Rebooted.
>
> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
> error of server not found.  Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>
> Suggestions please.
>
>

RecentlyOrLately wrote:

> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>
> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>
> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
> Rebooted.
>
> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
> error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>
> Suggestions please.

View the hosts file (no extension). Malware can leave entries there
that anti-virus cleanup doesn't remove (it won't know if the malware
added the entries, or you did). Malware often doesn't want you visiting
anti-virus/malware sites to keep you from completely removing them.

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

In the web browser, what URL is in its address bar when you attempt to
visit the malwarebytes.com web site?

RecentlyOrLately wrote:

> Currently Malwarebytes
> 1.70.0.1100
>
> e.g. cannot access
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/

That URL gets redirected by them to their secure web site at:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/

Try the HTTPS URL instead. They own both domains, but operate their
secure web site at the .com domain.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/
is left in the address bar.

Tried Seamonkey, same results.

Went to MajorGeeks and found link to Malwarebytes, clicked it and it
also failed.

Put C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts in Explorer and it opened a
dialog and opened Notepad.
shows
127.0.0.1 www.Brenz.pl
127.0.0.1 localhost

What is Brenz.pl ?
# it out and testing.

VanguardLH wrote:
> RecentlyOrLately wrote:
>
>> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>>
>> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>>
>> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
>> Rebooted.
>>
>> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
>> error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>>
>> Suggestions please.
>
> View the hosts file (no extension). Malware can leave entries there
> that anti-virus cleanup doesn't remove (it won't know if the malware
> added the entries, or you did). Malware often doesn't want you visiting
> anti-virus/malware sites to keep you from completely removing them.
>
> C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
>
> In the web browser, what URL is in its address bar when you attempt to
> visit the malwarebytes.com web site?
>

Sometimes i get a google prefix
https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=&rct=j&sa=U&url=https://www.superantispyware.com/&ved=2ahUKEwjWo76fva34AhWJKkQIHSpqD70QFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw1BZtv4hfDIQOQQiwtk1eOW

RecentlyOrLately wrote:
>
> https://www.malwarebytes.com/
> is left in the address bar.
>
> Tried Seamonkey, same results.
>
> Went to MajorGeeks and found link to Malwarebytes, clicked it and it
> also failed.
>
> Put C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts in Explorer and it opened a
> dialog and opened Notepad.
> shows
>   127.0.0.1 www.Brenz.pl
>   127.0.0.1       localhost
>
> What is Brenz.pl ?
> # it out and testing.
>
>
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> RecentlyOrLately wrote:
>>
>>> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>>>
>>> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>>>
>>> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
>>> Rebooted.
>>>
>>> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
>>> error of server not found.  Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>>>
>>> Suggestions please.
>>
>> View the hosts file (no extension).  Malware can leave entries there
>> that anti-virus cleanup doesn't remove (it won't know if the malware
>> added the entries, or you did).  Malware often doesn't want you visiting
>> anti-virus/malware sites to keep you from completely removing them.
>>
>> C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
>>
>> In the web browser, what URL is in its address bar when you attempt to
>> visit the malwarebytes.com web site?
>>
>

RecentlyOrLately,

> e.g. cannot access
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/

Try entering http://108.156.60.20 or https://108.156.60.20 (I used "ping
www.malwarebytes.com" to get that IP) and see what you get. If you do get
something it might just be the DNS service thats messed up.

I don't know how to fix it, but at least than you've got something to google
for.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:04:46 -0700, RecentlyOrLately
<RecentlyOrLately@RecentlyOrLately.com> wrote:

>Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>
>Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>
>I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
>Rebooted.
>
>Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
>error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>
>Suggestions please.
>

Forget all that "Malware" and AV crap. Install a simple sandbox like
Time Freeze from ToolWiz - a freebie with no nags, and have everything
that was downloaded by you or by some site dumped from your C: when
you reboot.

I've been using it for a few years without any of that "Security" crap
with no problems. Besides, Malwarebytes is crap.

On 6/14/2022 3:33 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> RecentlyOrLately,
>
>> e.g. cannot access
>> http://www.malwarebytes.org/
>
> Try entering http://108.156.60.20 or https://108.156.60.20 (I used "ping
> www.malwarebytes.com" to get that IP) and see what you get. If you do get
> something it might just be the DNS service thats messed up.
>
> I don't know how to fix it, but at least than you've got something to google
> for.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

But you can triangulate better than that.

The pisser, is I tested WinXP SP3 in a VM and everything
I tried, works. This is not encouraging, because it means
if I pour a whole bunch of stuff into a post, chances are
it won't work on the OPs setup.

There was the LetsEncrypt certificate problem a few months
back for Windows XP users. And I ran into a few individuals
who were pretty close to completely broken. The only
thing I could do, is use http://curl.se to bootstrap
them. Using a copy of curl, the users could then fetch
a replacement certificate to repair the LetsEncrypt expiry
on a certificate that LE was using as its next level of trust.

Now, the thing is, curl.se has since that occasion, switched
from http to https, making the fucking of the Internet complete.
Now I have no way of fetching a tool, without a wall of certificates
to cut me off. https uses certificates, http does not.

There is curl.exe and there is wget.exe, as alternates
to broken web browsers. If they were to have their own
certificate store onboard (as Firefox does), then they might
complete the fetch of something the OP really wants. But since
there are no updates for Firefox for WinXP users, the internal
certificate store no longer a "feature". The contents are
now too old in the 52ESR package.

Wget discontinued WinXP support, several minor releases ago.
So I didn't want to get into a hairball trying to figure out
whether this was true or not. The curl site didn't have a
drop-dead notice on WinXP.

wget.exe https://www.some.com/some.file # Using wget

curl.exe https://www.some.com/some.file --output some.file # Using curl

The MBAM installer (standalone, not net installer), which
does not contain definitions, is here. Once this is installed
and running, it'll download definitions (assuming it can make
connections and DNS isn't busted).

https://data-cdn.mbamupdates.com/web/mb3-setup-legacy/mb3-setup-legacywos-3.5.1.2522-1.0.365-1.0.5292.exe

This is a source of curl (if the OP can reach it). Because
they switched to https, this might not work either.

https://curl.se/windows/dl-7.83.1_3/curl-7.83.1_3-win32-mingw.zip

There are some wget.exe files here. You would unpack these,
open a command prompt. cd to the directory with wget.exe, then
issue a command in Command Prompt for the desired file transfer.
These should be scanned by the user, using www.virustotal.com .

https://eternallybored.org/misc/wget/

https://eternallybored.org/misc/wget/releases/old/wget-1.19.4-win32.zip # last Winxp

https://eternallybored.org/misc/wget/releases/wget-1.21.3-win32.zip # no worky on winxp

It could be DNS, it could be the LetsEncrypt bug. But because
I can't reproduce any of these here, it makes me wonder what
magic is in the Virtual Machine I'm using, that prevents breakage.
I was still able to visit malwarebytes.org (the main page does not
exactly help WinXP users all that much).

Malwarebytes is protected by CloudFlare, which means I can't
do any checking with the ssllabs thing.

The Internet is fast becoming a locked-up hot mess, with little
possibility of folks being able to bootstrap themselves out
of a certificate hole. Virtually every site now, is an Amazon AWS
instance, is protected by CloudFlare, or has items of that sort
to confuse matters. And these barriers to entry, are not intended
to help WinXP users particularly.

Paul

On 6/14/2022 3:55 PM, luke@invalid.com wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:04:46 -0700, RecentlyOrLately
> <RecentlyOrLately@RecentlyOrLately.com> wrote:
>
>> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>>
>> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>>
>> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
>> Rebooted.
>>
>> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
>> error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>>
>> Suggestions please.
>>
>
> Forget all that "Malware" and AV crap. Install a simple sandbox like
> Time Freeze from ToolWiz - a freebie with no nags, and have everything
> that was downloaded by you or by some site dumped from your C: when
> you reboot.
>
> I've been using it for a few years without any of that "Security" crap
> with no problems. Besides, Malwarebytes is crap.
>

If this is the LetsEncrypt problem, he's pretty close to being
cut off from the Internet. A sandbox won't help him now.
Thoughts and prayers might.

Paul

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 16:17:36 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 6/14/2022 3:55 PM, luke@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:04:46 -0700, RecentlyOrLately
>> <RecentlyOrLately@RecentlyOrLately.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Win XP pro on a Lenovo T500 laptop.
>>>
>>> Trying to find the latest Malwarebytes that will work with Win XP.
>>>
>>> I have an old version that found and supposedly removed some malware.
>>> Rebooted.
>>>
>>> Every time I attempt to go to the Malwarebytes webpages I get a browser
>>> error of server not found. Firefox or My Pal both fail.
>>>
>>> Suggestions please.
>>>
>>
>> Forget all that "Malware" and AV crap. Install a simple sandbox like
>> Time Freeze from ToolWiz - a freebie with no nags, and have everything
>> that was downloaded by you or by some site dumped from your C: when
>> you reboot.
>>
>> I've been using it for a few years without any of that "Security" crap
>> with no problems. Besides, Malwarebytes is crap.
>>
>
>If this is the LetsEncrypt problem, he's pretty close to being
>cut off from the Internet. A sandbox won't help him now.
>Thoughts and prayers might.
>
> Paul

My point was that if he uses what I suggested, he wouldn't have all
those "malware" problems. Those damn AV and "Security" programs have
gotten so invasive they can be more treacherous than some malware.

I found that out the hard way using some of those damn "Security"
programs. People have been brainwashed into using all that "Security"
crap - and that includes many of those untrustworthy AV programs.

RecentlyOrLately wrote:

> https://www.malwarebytes.com/
> is left in the address bar.
>
> Tried Seamonkey, same results.
>
> Went to MajorGeeks and found link to Malwarebytes, clicked it and it
> also failed.
>
> Put C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts in Explorer and it opened a
> dialog and opened Notepad.
> shows
> 127.0.0.1 www.Brenz.pl
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
>
> What is Brenz.pl ?
> # it out and testing.

You said you got infected. My guess without knowing what malware you
think you eradicated is the malware installed a local proxy through
which all your web traffic flowed, so they could misdirect you to other
sites than you intended, or block access to security sites that could
kill their infection. 127.0.0.1 is localhost, and often used by local
proxies (which can get confusing if there are multiple proxies all
listening on the same port). If the malware was using a proxy, and if
you really did eradicate it, then the hosts entry is neutered. However,
if their proxy is still around, you could be connecting to it which
redirects you to the brenz.pl site which could be doing anything, like
tracking where you intended to visit, redirect you to fake sites, etc.

Besides just commenting out the entry, I would delete it unless I could
find some legit software on my computer that needed localhost connects
to redirect to some external site (highly unlikely).

Because the malware cleanup didn't get rid of the non-standard entries
in the hosts file, could be the cleanup also didn't get rid of a change
in the network configuration. I don't have a WinXP host to give the
navigation to the settings, but somewhere you can get to Internet
Options. Might be in Control Panel. Might also be able to call it up
by running C:\Windows\System32\inetcpl.cpl. Go to the Connections tab.
Presuming you are using an always-on broadband connection (cable or DSL,
not dialup), the "Dial-up and Virtual Private Network Settings" section
should be blank. I'm also presuming you are not using a VPN. Click the
"LAN settings" button. All those options should be deselected. Malware
may try to use them to intercept your LAN traffic, especially if you see
a proxy server specified. Even if the cleanup got rid of the malware,
the LAN settings could be pointing to a local proxy that no longer
exists, so you cannot connect to a proxy that is no longer running.

I've yet to see any anti-virus/malware tool perform 100% cleanup,
because they won't know which settings were made by you or the malware.

On 6/14/2022 1:34 PM, RecentlyOrLately wrote:
>
> https://www.malwarebytes.com/
> is left in the address bar.
>
> Tried Seamonkey, same results.
>
> Went to MajorGeeks and found link to Malwarebytes, clicked it and it also failed.
>
> Put C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts in Explorer and it opened a dialog and opened Notepad.
> shows
>   127.0.0.1 www.Brenz.pl
>   127.0.0.1       localhost
>
> What is Brenz.pl ?
> # it out and testing.
>

You can scan URLs on virustotal.com . That particular domain
doesn't have a good reputation.

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/31ce243b2ef5dd3790be577eeb9d68df7afdda26be2131de243cb06b3d742efc/detection

That site has a suspicious rating, but none of the "evidence"
amounted to a hill of beans. It doesn't say exactly what item
or item type made it suspicious.

So rather than using the comments on Virustotal, doing a general
Google search got an answer for me.

https://blog.sucuri.net/2011/03/brenz-pl-is-back-with-malicious-iframes.html

When you map things in the HOSTS file, that is a local
DNS table. It says "if a browser tries to open www.Brenz.pl,
then try address 127.0.0.1". Since 127.0.0.1 is the local computer
address (one of the shorthands for localhost and stated as such
in the HOSTS file itself), the browser will go to 127.0.0.1:80.

Normally, users do not run web servers on their local computer,
so an attempt to "browse" 127.0.0.1 is a kind of packet sink.
People would put lists of eight hundred different sites, like
doubleclick.net, to cause all the tracking site packets to be
dropped. That would be a normal usage of this trick.

I can't imagine an AV making that HOSTS entry, as I don't think
they normally battle malware in that way. The reason AVs don't
do that, is malware can use heuristically generated domain
names, as a function of time of day or day of week, and that
is an easy way to bypass a HOSTS file. The malware could
start using 12345678.com at noon, and your HOSTS file would be
rendered useless. With heuristically generated domains, a
"thing" elsewhere on the Internet, registers 12345678.com
at 11:55AM in the morning, so it is ready to use by the
malware at noon.

Now, a question would be, what clever things could you do by
running a web server on someones computer (if the malware put
the entry there) ?

Maybe your antispyware put that entry there ?

In any case, with an infected machine, you might want to
reach malwarebytes with a second (uninfected) computer. If
something sufficiently nasty, got into your local LAN,
you may end up using the public library computer, take
a blank CD with you, and write one of these onto it.

https://data-cdn.mbamupdates.com/web/mb3-setup-legacy/mb3-setup-legacywos-3.5.1.2522-1.0.365-1.0.5292.exe

There is the Kaspersky Rescue CD as an offline scanner.

The BitDefender CD still exists. Like Kaspersky, the OS on the
CD is based on Gentoo. But the BitDefender people are no where
near as good at setting up Gentoo, as the Kaspersky people are.
I did get BitDefender CD to run, but you have to set up an
Xserver on a second PC, set the display variable on BitDefender
when it cannot start the screen on the computer it is booted on.

DISPLAY=192.168.1.3:0
export DISPLAY

to be able to reach the Xserver and draw the BitDefender
interface window on it. Which is fun as a bar bet, but
not all that practical for someone who "just wants to run
a scan".

On the second computer, I was running this, and then BitDefender
would draw its operating screen, on my second computer.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/xming/

I would not normally have even thought of doing that, but the
icon for that was staring me in the face on the second computer desktop
and "ding! ding! ding!" came to mind :-) Initially I'd been trying
to get the graphics running on the BitDefender machine, but
things were looking pretty hopeless, when I glanced at the
other machine and remembered X protocol as an option.

Paul

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:40:56 -0500, luke@invalid.com wrote:
>
> My point was that if he uses what I suggested, he wouldn't have all
> those "malware" problems. Those damn AV and "Security" programs have
> gotten so invasive they can be more treacherous than some malware.
>
> I found that out the hard way using some of those damn "Security"
> programs. People have been brainwashed into using all that "Security"
> crap - and that includes many of those untrustworthy AV programs.

There's really no point on convincing people not to use AVs, since most of
them are just clueless about security. They have no choice but to rely on
AVs. And it is their choice if they don't want to educate themselves.

AV companies know this, and they simply take advantage of it.

Back in the old days, AVs used to be capable and honest. But it all started
going worse when they stopped providing the ability to cure virus infected
programs, and instead, simply delete the infected programs. Nowaday, AVs are
disruptive enough in daily tasks - making them to behave just like malwares
but posing as AVs. Malwares which are glorified by the public. They're
nothing more than smarter malwares which are worse than common malwares.

But AVs aren't the only one to blame, it's the malware/virus writes which
should be blamed, because they're the ones who started all these mess. And I
don't think the punishment by law for making malware/virus is heavy/severe
enough, considering that the digital world has become crucial in our life.

I had long ago installed the Tor Browser to experiment with.

I tried the Tor Browser and it was able to access all the websites that
all my other browsers are NOT able to access.

Does this help identify the problem related to the other browsers?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 10:10:23, RecentlOrLately
<RecentlOrLately@RecentlOrLately.com> wrote (my responses usually
FOLLOW):
>
>I had long ago installed the Tor Browser to experiment with.
>
>I tried the Tor Browser and it was able to access all the websites that
>all my other browsers are NOT able to access.
>
>Does this help identify the problem related to the other browsers?
>
What do you get if you ping those sites? (Open a command prompt and type

ping URL
).

You should get something like

D:\> ping bbc.co.uk

Pinging bbc.co.uk [151.101.0.81] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 151.101.0.81: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=58
Reply from 151.101.0.81: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=58
Reply from 151.101.0.81: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=58
Reply from 151.101.0.81: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 151.101.0.81:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 8ms, Average = 8ms

You should get a different IP (the 151.101.0.81 in the above example)
for each one you try.

Also try a non-existent one - you should get something like

D:\> ping xyzzy.ac
Ping request could not find host xyzzy.ac. Please check the name and try
again.

(These are from Windows 7, but I don't think ping has changed much since
XP or before.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Mary Poppins is a junkie" - bumper sticker on Julie Andrews' car in the '60s

On 6/15/2022 1:10 PM, RecentlOrLately wrote:
>
> I had long ago installed the Tor Browser to experiment with.
>
> I tried the Tor Browser and it was able to access all the websites that all my other browsers are NOT able to access.
>
> Does this help identify the problem related to the other browsers?
>

It says here, a hostname is resolved on the exit node on the other end.
In other words, WinXP DNS is not being used when you use the
TOR Browser and try to reach https://www.example.com .

https://tor.stackexchange.com/questions/8/how-does-tor-route-dns-requests

That does not allow me to narrow down the problem at all. I don't
know what the TOR Browser uses for an SChannel. Or certificates.

On the WinXP Host, open a command prompt and try

nslookup www.sun.com

104.124.10.27 # IPV4 address
104.124.10.91 # IPV4 address

and see if the local DNS is working for you. That's a start.
To work, the local browser in WinXP wants to use that number,
and the "www.sun.com" part is for human convenience.

But at this point, I don't have a mental picture of a
test strategy for a (known-broken) WinXP platform. There's
lots of stuff I don't know how to test, and I couldn't tell
the difference between a browser problem and an SChannel problem.
And I'm talking about the browser that is broken.

Paul

Question
Is Time Freeze a good tool to run all the time for protection ?

What I did:
1) used to Tor browser to download the latest version of
SuperAnitiSpyware (SAS)

2) Ran it at max scan depth

3) it found many problems including four Trojans.

4) I asked SAS to remove all and it apparently did after erasing stuff
and my booting the laptop.

5) I tried the nslookup www.sun.com and it returned two IP addresses and
was successful.

6) I opened FireFox and so far I am able to surf some but not security
sites like superantispyware.com.

7) Not able to update superantispyware and am using 6 yo database 12156.

8) continuing to test ...

9) I am going to see if I can install NordVPN or some other.

On 6/15/2022 4:27 PM, RecentlyOrLately wrote:
>
>
> Question
> Is Time Freeze a good tool to run all the time for protection ?
>
> What I did:
> 1) used to Tor browser to download the latest version of
>    SuperAnitiSpyware   (SAS)
>
> 2) Ran it at max scan depth
>
> 3) it found many problems including four Trojans.
>
> 4) I asked SAS to remove all and it apparently did after erasing stuff and my booting the laptop.
>
> 5) I tried the nslookup www.sun.com and it returned two IP addresses and was successful.
>
> 6) I opened FireFox and so far I am able to surf some but not security sites like superantispyware.com.
>
> 7) Not able to update superantispyware and am using 6  yo database 12156.
>
> 8) continuing to test ...
>
> 9) I am going to see if I can install NordVPN or some other.
>

You could try reaching here and downloading the definitions this way.

https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/superantispyware_database_definitions.html

"SUPERAntiSpyware Database Definitions June 9, 2022 "

Author: SUPERAntiSpyware.com
Date: 06/07/2022
Size: 196 MB
License: Freeware

Techspot has one as well. It's newer.

https://www.techspot.com/downloads/5026-superantispyware-update.html

I don't think your malware will be inconvenienced at
all, by a VPN. But you can certainly try, for the experience.

You've made pretty good progress so far. Hope you have
a backup, just in case.

*******

No idea on the "Time Freeze". The most impressive subsystem
WinXP has got on it, is VSS (Volume Shadow Service) and it is
an OS mechanism for freezing a version of a partition. That's
used by backup software. It could be that the Time Freeze uses
VSS for part of what it does.

https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/toolwiz_time_freeze.html

Not every implementation of this idea has been a success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoBack

"Several users at CNET Reviews have reported data loss
after installing this product"

Ha! There are lots of stories of disasters. The more
of a power user a person was, the more likely a disaster
awaited.

And that's partially because GoBack was written entirely
by hand by the developers. VSS likely did not exist when
they wrote that.

Paul

Thank you for those database links.

Having to use Tor to download. Now downloading. Slow !

Seems whenever, for example, superantispyware, is used in a link the
other browsers will not process and give me the server error message.

Tor has no problem so far.

So is there a browser addon, background running app or way of making a
websites locked out.
Sort of like or exactly like parental controls ?

I did not know that the database was available separately.

A VPN would be much faster than the Tor browser.

I have NORD VPN on a Win 7 Pro but NORD is not available of Win XP Pro
32bit. Turns out Tor browser by itself and NORD VPN with Firefox have
very different search results, strange. So I stay away from that
confusion.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:49:33 +0700, JJ <jj4public@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:40:56 -0500, luke@invalid.com wrote:
>>
>> My point was that if he uses what I suggested, he wouldn't have all
>> those "malware" problems. Those damn AV and "Security" programs have
>> gotten so invasive they can be more treacherous than some malware.
>>
>> I found that out the hard way using some of those damn "Security"
>> programs. People have been brainwashed into using all that "Security"
>> crap - and that includes many of those untrustworthy AV programs.
>
>There's really no point on convincing people not to use AVs, since most of
>them are just clueless about security. They have no choice but to rely on
>AVs. And it is their choice if they don't want to educate themselves.
>
>AV companies know this, and they simply take advantage of it.
>
>Back in the old days, AVs used to be capable and honest. But it all started
>going worse when they stopped providing the ability to cure virus infected
>programs, and instead, simply delete the infected programs. Nowaday, AVs are
>disruptive enough in daily tasks - making them to behave just like malwares
>but posing as AVs. Malwares which are glorified by the public. They're
>nothing more than smarter malwares which are worse than common malwares.
>
>But AVs aren't the only one to blame, it's the malware/virus writes which
>should be blamed, because they're the ones who started all these mess. And I
>don't think the punishment by law for making malware/virus is heavy/severe
>enough, considering that the digital world has become crucial in our life.

Agreed.

That's why I said to hell with the whole "Security" thing. I don't
expect hardly anyone to go to the Toolwiz page -
http://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/

But, I figure if only one person out of the hundreds/thousands reading
this group try it and use it, my posts are worth it.

It eliminates all the p.i.a. "Security" crap problems.

I use Tooilwiz's Time Freeze instead of another sandbox, such as
Sandboxie, because it is utter simplicity compared to many of the
others.

I am a firm believer in the KISS Principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

<luke@invalid.com> wrote

| That's why I said to hell with the whole "Security" thing. I don't
| expect hardly anyone to go to the Toolwiz page -
| http://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
|

That's a clunky method for dummies. Like system restore.
It uses a lot of space and processing power. Meanwhile,
there's no security. You've only got data backup. If you've
got malware stealing your credit card info online you'll never
know.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:54:02 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

><luke@invalid.com> wrote
>
>| That's why I said to hell with the whole "Security" thing. I don't
>| expect hardly anyone to go to the Toolwiz page -
>| http://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>|
>
> That's a clunky method for dummies. Like system restore.
>It uses a lot of space and processing power. Meanwhile,
>there's no security. You've only got data backup. If you've
>got malware stealing your credit card info online you'll never
>know.
>

That's a bunch of deceitful half truths I won't even bother
answering.

On 6/16/2022 5:08 PM, luke@invalid.com wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:54:02 -0400, "Mayayana"
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> <luke@invalid.com> wrote
>>
>> | That's why I said to hell with the whole "Security" thing. I don't
>> | expect hardly anyone to go to the Toolwiz page -
>> | http://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>> |
>>
>> That's a clunky method for dummies. Like system restore.
>> It uses a lot of space and processing power. Meanwhile,
>> there's no security. You've only got data backup. If you've
>> got malware stealing your credit card info online you'll never
>> know.
>>
>
> That's a bunch of deceitful half truths I won't even bother
> answering.
>

A review from 2012.

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/toolwiz-time-freeze.4045005/

"I would recommend having a good image of your system before trying this
program out as I will likely reload it in a bit...after some more testing
of this program. I can't recommended it at this point however."

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/toolwiz-time-freeze.313299/page-30

Aug 21, 2021

"Toowiz TimeFreeze and Shadow Defender is a No , Don't do it ..use 1 or the other not both.. "

I'm not finding reviews by sites like Tomshardware or the like for this.

Paul