Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot

news.rcn.com wrote:
> Does anyone know what "Bad checksum" on downloading of updates to
> spybot means?

The site is very buzy.

Try a different download site.

> I pressed on a link in a spoof email QUESTION FROM EBAY MEMBER which
> did nothing
>
> Which tends to mean that it very definitely did SOMETHING in the
> background, otherwise they wouldn't have sent the email and now
> spybot doesn't download updates. Is this a recognised trojan yet?
>
> (Updated NAV found nothing when I did this or generally when the
> email came in)
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

In article <7rWUe.6347$zw1.124@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
shanebeatson.RemoveThis@gmail.com says...

> Personally I'm getting fed up with Spybot updating
> and immunizing issues in recent months

Likewise, and I now prefer to use the online scanner at Trend Micro.
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

Well I wasnt THAT worried as it didnt take me to a site where I had to enter
my personal ID details but I still thought that it MIGHT be some trojan
which is suddenly active but known.

(Apparently not)

What is it supposed to do then if it isnt trying to harvest information or I
suppose that is what Spybot has silently blocked?

Anyway thanks guys, Spybot has now downloaded from a different site and I
dont appear to have anything (except for obvioously informing me whenever it
does a scan that I have a hardware firewall and dont need to have XP
continuously nag me to turn the firewall and antivirus on)
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

In article <lo29i1h8d3nukisak26ttee98gog4pdgui RemoveThis @4ax.com>, null RemoveThis @zilch.com
says...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:38:11 GMT, "Shane" <shanebeatson RemoveThis @gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Personally I'm getting fed
> >up with Spybot updating and immunizing issues in recent months.
>
> Why are you interested in Spybot's immunize, may I ask? I see no
> point in it for alternate browser users who have the alternate
> browser set as the system default.

'cos sometimes, albeit rarely these days, there is a need to view a site
in IE.

I view different sites in IE simply because I am an amateur web
developer who needs to view different sites in different browsers for a
variety of different reasons.

Subsequently, despite the fact I have in place an armoury of protection,
and can fight my own corner 'cos in the main I know what i'm doing,
those extra layers make me feel a whole lot more secure.
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

news.rcn.com wrote:
> Well I wasnt THAT worried as it didnt take me to a site where I had
> to enter my personal ID details but I still thought that it MIGHT be
> some trojan which is suddenly active but known.

Not sure I follow degrees of worry one might have a trojan. If one suspects
it, one ought to prove it one way or the other.

Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

It is just a worry about what these guys are doing sending these pieces of
mail which dont seem to do anything or advertise anything


When I press on a button and nothing happens, I start worrying but it may
just be some element of paranoia.
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

Art <null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:38:11 GMT, "Shane" <shanebeatson.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> > Personally I'm getting fed
> >up with Spybot updating and immunizing issues in recent months.

> Why are you interested in Spybot's immunize, may I ask? I see no
> point in it for alternate browser users who have the alternate
> browser set as the system default.


Except for Opera (an excellent default browser imho), at least according to
Sypbot 1.4's immunization menu. Nex
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

Art wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:38:11 GMT, "Shane" <shanebeatson.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Personally I'm getting fed
>> up with Spybot updating and immunizing issues in recent months.
>
> Why are you interested in Spybot's immunize, may I ask? I see no
> point in it for alternate browser users who have the alternate
> browser set as the system default.
>

I use IE quite a lot, Art. At least as much bugs me about Firefox as IE and
as ComPCs says, I too use plenty enough sites that work best in IE.

I do a lot of my surfing laid back, using a wireless mouse and don't like
that Firefox's built in Google requires hitting the Enter key of a keyboard.

Also I mostly use XP SP2 - which has IE 6.0 SP2 (with popup blocker and
other enhancements. When I'm not testing IE 7.0, that is, which also has
tabbed browsing and anti-phishing and other stuff I haven't investigated
yet).

I don't use Spybot's bad download blocker or Tea Timer (I don't even know
what *that* one is!), just Immunize, which as far as I know just puts
certain sites in Restricted Zone.

I think there's no great need to set Firefox as default browser with all the
other security enhancements in place. Experience hasn't shown a need to do
so and whenever I've set Firefox as default I've rapidly got annoyed with
it. I do use it a lot, but prefer IE as default. With Spybot,
Spywareblaster, IE-Spyad, Restricted Zone maxed out, Install On Demand
(both) disabled, a custom Cookie Handling .xml file, drag and drop disabled,
and all the MS patches, I don't have many qualms about using IE.


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

> I tried it and wound up locked out of IE security settings. Couldn't
> get riid of the lockout via the means suggested in Help. Wound up
> uninstalling Spybot and using ERUNT to restore registry, then
> reinstalling Spybot. This was on Win 2K Pro. Looks to like Spybot
> is buggy in this regard.
>

What, *just* Immunize?


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

> I use IE quite a lot, Art. At least as much bugs me about Firefox as
> IE and as ComPCs says, I too use plenty enough sites that work best
> in IE.

Actually, ComPCs didn't say that, did he!

Whatever!


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

>> I think there's no great need to set Firefox as default browser with
>> all the other security enhancements in place. Experience hasn't
>> shown a need to do so and whenever I've set Firefox as default I've
>> rapidly got annoyed with it. I do use it a lot, but prefer IE as
>> default. With Spybot, Spywareblaster, IE-Spyad, Restricted Zone
>> maxed out, Install On Demand (both) disabled, a custom Cookie
>> Handling .xml file, drag and drop disabled, and all the MS patches,
>> I don't have many qualms about using IE.
>
> Since I shun IE as much as possible, I have no need for additional
> security enhancements for it. I just use it if I'm pretty sure the web
> site is ok.

Fair enough, but besides a little time checking for updates - which, of
course someone will always notify the groups - it isn't much effort, so why
not do it anyway?

>
> The reason I insist on Moz being the default browser is clickable
> links. I often follow links on newsgroups to alleged dangerous sites.
> And that might mean one of the unpatched IE vulnerabilities.

In that case I open FF and copy the link into it.

> I just
> see no point in using IE, especially since CERT has advised strongly
> to use a alternate browser.
>

Is this going on Microsoft's track record; the assumption of many more
as-yet-undiscovered vulnerabilities? While I don't think you do this, it
seems to me that the impression many give who cite this assumption is of
alternative browsers not also being vulnerable. Luckily people also notify
the groups of the latest FF patch (new build). But only FF of the
alternatives, of course.

My recommendation to users is usually to use Firefox as default, but I know
that many users will simply not get on with it and revert to IE, so I try to
get them to do what I have done. Which gets back to my personally hardening
'as much as I can get away with' other people's machines - add to the above
list installing Kerio 2.1.5 and setting the rules up and/or closing
unnecessary ports - that is what I do.


Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

>> My recommendation to users is usually to use Firefox as default, but
>> I know that many users will simply not get on with it and revert to
>> IE, so I try to get them to do what I have done. Which gets back to
>> my personally hardening 'as much as I can get away with' other
>> people's machines - add to the above list installing Kerio 2.1.5 and
>> setting the rules up and/or closing unnecessary ports - that is what
>> I do.
>
> ?? Hardening should be done regardless. I don't think you meant that
> to come across as a either/or proposition
>

When you're right, you're right! Actually there are several statements I've
made recently that didn't come out as intended

Where I do mean either/or is closing vulnerabilities that impact on the
eye-candy, which users will notice and probably complain about. Like I've
said before, I've gotten to where I don't persist unless they're family.
Trouble with family is they tend to be approx. as pig-headed as oneself.


SHane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot 

Art wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:33:11 GMT, "Shane" <shanebeatson.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> ?? Hardening should be done regardless. I don't think you meant that
>>> to come across as a either/or proposition
>>>
>>
>> When you're right, you're right! Actually there are several
>> statements I've made recently that didn't come out as intended
>>
>> Where I do mean either/or is closing vulnerabilities that impact on
>> the eye-candy, which users will notice and probably complain about.
>> Like I've said before, I've gotten to where I don't persist unless
>> they're family. Trouble with family is they tend to be approx. as
>> pig-headed as oneself.
>
> Fortunately, my wife Peg is a technophobe who listens to what I tell
> her to do and not to do (on the computer only, of course )
> She's had the Win ME PC all to herself for several months. I check it
> out every couple of weeks or so and never find malware or spyware.
> She gets tons of email from genealogy lists, and roams the web in
> pursuit of her hobbies and interests. So it seems average/typical
> users are fine as long as someone:
>
> 1. Hardens their PC and provides help with internet app selection
> and their settings.
> 2. Provides some "safe hex" guidelines, rules to follow, and a little
> bit of education.
>
> I think most should be able to even handle routine checks and
> maintenence with some help and instruction. Peg does do a
> daily minor regimen including data backup and a couple of things
> with Moz email to keep it running smoothly. (Emptying Trash
> and compacting folders daily seems to keep it from losing
> folders and otherwise misbehaving).
>
> In fact, without me fiddling around with her PC, it hums along
> fine. By far, the biggest danger to our machines is not
> malware/spyware, but my twiddling. Fortunately, on the eighth
> day, God created ERUNT




Shane
 >> Stay informed about: Bad checksum on download of updates to spybot