Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better
handle on how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and
judging from the early figures, the story seems to be almost
entirely about Windows 7.

According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98
percent of the computers affected by the ransomware were running
some version of Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand
running Windows XP. 2008 R2 Server clients were also hit hard,
making up just over 1 percent of infections.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-
version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

[burfordTjustice]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.

[Nobody]

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.

The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.

"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."

"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

[David E. Ross]

Post by Nobody

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.

The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.
"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."
"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.

No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.

See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
<http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html>.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

Consider:
* Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
* Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
* If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
* If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??

[Paul]

Post by David E. Ross

Post by Nobody

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.

The article is posted on The Verge, not written by the OP.
"One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better handle on
how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and judging from the
early figures, the story seems to be almost entirely about Windows 7."
"According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98 percent
of the computers affected by the ransomware were running some version of
Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand running Windows XP. 2008 R2
Server clients were also hit hard, making up just over 1 percent of
infections."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.
No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.
See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
<http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html>.

I don't think we should really exaggerate the risk level
for this, at least for home users.

In a corporate environment, it's an issue of "scale".

1) Just the worm-like network packets sent, can slow
a network down. Even if the AV on a target machine
blocks the effects of an incoming packet, the packets
being sent use up network bandwidth. This is why some
enterprises claimed they were "disturbed" by WannaCrypt,
but not turned into a meltdown.

2) There can be a lot more machines on one LAN segment,
compared to a home user.

For a home user, the level of risk is relatively the
same between Locky, and WannaCrypt. Certain flavors of
Locky can crawl through existing file share mounts, or
mount the disk in question (if the mount does not
require the user to type a password perhaps). If you
have only two running computers on your home LAN right
now, Locky could end up encrypting most of the partitions,
while WannaCrypt could encrypt all of them.

In terms of preparedness, both require a complete home
backup strategy, for best protection.

At the current time, you still have to click on an
email attachment, to be infected, for WannaCrypt to
get inside your LAN. The typical IPV4 NAT router
protects against incoming worm-like behavior. It
takes effort for the average user, to have port-forwarded
the necessary port(s), for a Port Forwarded file share
to be an (original) infection vector.

The situation is lamentable, but the solutions
really aren't all that different than preparing
for a visit from Locky.

Now, if any of these things use an Adobe Flash exploit
as the entry vehicle (no matter which Ransomware is involved),
*then* we're in deep trouble. Popular web sites still sell
advertising space involving Flash content from unknown sources.
Whether WannaCrypt or Locky were to get in that way, it
would be a mess. No amount of patching of Adobe Flash,
seems to be enough.

Personally, I'm still worried about Locky.

Paul

[Mayayana]

"David E. Ross" <***@nowhere.invalid> wrote

| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.

I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that." :)

There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target
machines:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/wikileaks-dump-reveals-cia-malware-that-can-sabotage-user-software/

Your tax dollars at work. I have to wonder how
much of this is adult teenagers without enough
supervision. It's hard to imagine any useful purpose
for planting malware that periodically kills Firefox
or IE processes. That's just juvenile nonsense.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:18:52 -0400, "Mayayana"

Post by Mayayana
| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.
I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that." :)
There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target

Didn't the NSA insist that OS vendors leave a backdoor for them and
try to force them to do so?

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:18:52 -0400, "Mayayana"

Post by Mayayana
| The NSA
| developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
| computer systems against theft of that malware.
I'm imagining the NSA using the marketing
logic of the gun lobby: "If you outlaw malware
only outlaws will have malware. And we can't
have that." :)
There was even news recently that the NSA
had developed "hassleware", to cause general
disruption of 3rd-party software on target

Didn't the NSA insist that OS vendors leave a backdoor for them and
try to force them to do so?

Here, some Linux people have their little joke.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/19/linux_backdoor_intrigue/

The thing that should bother you about that article,
was the removal of the Elephant Diffuser from
later versions of BitLocker. Maybe a back door wasn't
planted when the FBI wanted one, but it was made a
little less secure by removal of the elephant Diffuser
(for "performance" reasons). People who invoke
security/privacy in their computing, always place
an emphasis on performance over privacy, right ? Right ?

You're in good hands with All State.

https://theintercept.com/2015/06/04/microsoft-disk-encryption/

"it explained why it removed the Elephant diffuser, citing
worries over performance and compatibility that will appease
some, but certainly not all, concerned parties"

"Windows Vista ... AES-CBC ... along with ... Elephant diffuser"

"Windows 8 silently removed the Elephant diffuser
even though it still uses AES-CBC."

"Removing the Elephant diffuser doesn't entirely break BitLocker.
If someone steals your laptop, they still won't be able to
unlock your disk and access your files. But they might be
able to modify your encrypted disk and give it back to
you in order to hack you the next time you boot up."

HTH,
Paul

[Brian Gregory]

Post by David E. Ross
However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.
No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.
See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
<http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html>.

Simple, on Windows 10 you are more or less forced to do your updates
while on Windows 7 you're not, plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

[Paul]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by David E. Ross
However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.
No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.
See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
<http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html>.

Simple, on Windows 10 you are more or less forced to do your updates
while on Windows 7 you're not, plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

CEIP was probably added a while back. CEIP *is* a good concept
when it is between customers and developers. I think the subsystems
in Mozilla Firefox, are an excellent example of an implementation.
Microsoft CEIP on the other hand, drops all the info at Microsoft first,
and the user never knows whether an actual developer logs into
their Microsoft account and takes any advantage of CEIP-related
info for their application. Whereas with Firefox, there is
good visibility (Mozilla documents some of the things it is
measuring). The lack of individually traceable documentation
on Microsoft CEIP, is why people don't trust it. Firefox has
tick boxes. Firefox has documentation. That's the right way
to do it. "Don't piss off your customers."

The annoying part in Windows Update, is adding software to
make it possible to run Store Apps. When no one is interested.

I don't have a problem with them offering any of that
in the "Optional" section of Windows Update. I will
object strenuously to the practice of putting unwanted
payloads *inside* purported security updates. We want
our security updates, to be little 500K nuggets that
just fix stuff. We don't want 200MB trojans with
a 500KB security update thrown in for good measure.

I don't see that as tinhat-ism.

So if I were to mention "fuck you and your 200MB trojan",
then maybe you'd understand. It's a violation of the
concept they invented themselves, the "security" section
and the "optional" section.

I don't use the App Store on Win10. And how likely
am I to spend hours going through that on my
copy of Win7 ? Not damn likely.

I can understand business interests and business plans.
But, a company can take a light touch, and the high
road when doing stuff. They don't have to be douche
bags, all the time...

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ofup04$s5l$***@dont-email.me>, Paul <***@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]

Post by Paul
measuring). The lack of individually traceable documentation
on Microsoft CEIP, is why people don't trust it. Firefox has
tick boxes. Firefox has documentation. That's the right way
to do it. "Don't piss off your customers."

[]
Hmm. What's the definition of a "customer": someone who _has_ bought
something from you, or someone who _might_ buy something from you again
in the future? For Firefox, which is largely free (donations
notwithstanding), the overlap is larger. For MS, it's basically a
monopoly (certainly all high/main street stores, and the majority of
online ones), so they know you _will_ be a customer whatever they do
next time you need to buy a computer; whether pissing you off in the
meantime matters much, ... are you a "customer"?

[Paul]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Paul
measuring). The lack of individually traceable documentation
on Microsoft CEIP, is why people don't trust it. Firefox has
tick boxes. Firefox has documentation. That's the right way
to do it. "Don't piss off your customers."

[]
Hmm. What's the definition of a "customer": someone who _has_ bought
something from you, or someone who _might_ buy something from you again
in the future? For Firefox, which is largely free (donations
notwithstanding), the overlap is larger. For MS, it's basically a
monopoly (certainly all high/main street stores, and the majority of
online ones), so they know you _will_ be a customer whatever they do
next time you need to buy a computer; whether pissing you off in the
meantime matters much, ... are you a "customer"?

The customer is the consumer of your software.

The person who downloaded it.

The person who trusted you.

Paul

[(PeteCresswell)]

Post by Brian Gregory
plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

My experience is that MS was, in fact, using updates to force Windows 10
on people. May have changed by now, but I almost burned myself a couple
of times. Not a huge deal if once has images to go back to... but MS
*was* using updates to push 10.... and my recollection was that they
were getting flack for it.

[David E. Ross]

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Brian Gregory
plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

My experience is that MS was, in fact, using updates to force Windows 10
on people. May have changed by now, but I almost burned myself a couple
of times. Not a huge deal if once has images to go back to... but MS
*was* using updates to push 10.... and my recollection was that they
were getting flack for it.

Microsoft has a problem with buggy updates, which is another reason to
avoid automatic installation.

I turned off automatic updates. When I get an alert that updates are
available, I wait at least a week while I monitor this newsgroup to see
if anyone has an adverse result from installing the updates. I also
review the descriptions of updates, even going to linked Web pages from
the primary descriptive Web pages. More than once, I have avoided a
serious problem by rejecting some updates.

Of course, such a delay is not always sufficient. Since the end of
2014, I installed 39 Microsoft updates that replaced earlier updates
that were found to contain bugs. Of those 39, three were replacements
of earlier replacements of updates.

And then there are the updates that fail to install, even after a second
attempt.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

Consider:
* Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
* Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
* If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
* If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??

[Brian Gregory]

Post by David E. Ross

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Brian Gregory
plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

My experience is that MS was, in fact, using updates to force Windows 10
on people. May have changed by now, but I almost burned myself a couple
of times. Not a huge deal if once has images to go back to... but MS
*was* using updates to push 10.... and my recollection was that they
were getting flack for it.

Microsoft has a problem with buggy updates, which is another reason to
avoid automatic installation.
I turned off automatic updates. When I get an alert that updates are
available, I wait at least a week while I monitor this newsgroup to see
if anyone has an adverse result from installing the updates. I also
review the descriptions of updates, even going to linked Web pages from
the primary descriptive Web pages. More than once, I have avoided a
serious problem by rejecting some updates.
Of course, such a delay is not always sufficient. Since the end of
2014, I installed 39 Microsoft updates that replaced earlier updates
that were found to contain bugs. Of those 39, three were replacements
of earlier replacements of updates.
And then there are the updates that fail to install, even after a second
attempt.

I never really had any problems myself. I install all updates including
most optional ones unless there is a clear reason not to like with the
update previews that have started to appear recently. As soon as I heard
MS was pushing Windows 10 I ran Never10 and that's all I had to do to
make sure I wasn't upgraded to Windows 10. I've never seen any real
evidence that Microsoft stealing my data, I assume that some researcher
somewhere would notice if they were and a big fuss would be made.

I can only assume that people who have problems largely have them
because they have chosen to ignore some weird semi random set of updates
which happens to be a combination that Microsoft did not test for bugs.

[Shadow]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:05:32 +0100, Brian Gregory

Post by Brian Gregory
I never really had any problems myself. I install all updates including
most optional ones

So you were vulnerable from August 2016 - March 2017 to an
exploit M$ knew about.
Most XP machines are so hardened by firewalls and lack of
PEBKACs that very few were affected. (only 1% of all victims)
Carry on training. You WILL eventually hit your mouth with
that ice cream. Meanwhile, wipe it off your nose graciously, don't
make such a fuss. Sht happens.
[]'s

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Shadow
On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:05:32 +0100, Brian Gregory

Post by Brian Gregory
I never really had any problems myself. I install all updates including
most optional ones

So you were vulnerable from August 2016 - March 2017 to an
exploit M$ knew about.
Most XP machines are so hardened by firewalls and lack of
PEBKACs that very few were affected. (only 1% of all victims)

Is that, 1% of all victims of WannaCry were XP users? How does that
compare with the percentage of (*online*) computers that are running XP?
(Figures claimed for that vary widely, of course.)

Post by Shadow
Carry on training. You WILL eventually hit your mouth with
that ice cream. Meanwhile, wipe it off your nose graciously, don't
make such a fuss. Sht happens.
[]'s

[Brian Gregory]

Post by Shadow
On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:05:32 +0100, Brian Gregory

Post by Brian Gregory
I never really had any problems myself. I install all updates including
most optional ones

So you were vulnerable from August 2016 - March 2017 to an
exploit M$ knew about.
Most XP machines are so hardened by firewalls and lack of
PEBKACs that very few were affected. (only 1% of all victims)
Carry on training. You WILL eventually hit your mouth with
that ice cream. Meanwhile, wipe it off your nose graciously, don't
make such a fuss. Sht happens.
[]'s

Actually it seems that there was a bug in the XP version of the eternal
Blue exploit (as implemented in WanaCry, don't know about in the stolen
NSA document).

I wonder if the NSA leaned on Microsoft? Probably not, but it wouldn't
really surprise me if they did, maybe that's why the patches were
delayed from February to March.

[Brian Gregory]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by David E. Ross
However, Micro$oft released a security update to Windows 10 to block
WannaCry and WannaCrypt. To me, this indicates that Windows 10 was no
less vulnerable than Windows 7.
No matter what systems were actually attacked, much of the blame should
be focused on the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA
developed the tool used for ransomware and failed to secure its own
computer systems against theft of that malware. The NSA therefore put
United States -- people, businesses, organizations, and even the
government itself -- at risk instead of protecting us.
See my "The Great Computer Plague of 2017" at
<http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_PCplague.html>.

Simple, on Windows 10 you are more or less forced to do your updates
while on Windows 7 you're not, plus a lot of stupid people have stopped
doing updates on Windows 7 believing that Microsoft is using updates to
force spyware and Windows 10 on them.

Actually it seems that there was a bug in the XP version of the exploit
(as implemented in WanaCry).

[burfordTjustice]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

[Nathan Hale]

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

Booford you posting drunk again?

[burfordTjustice]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 21:31:15 +0100 (BST)

Post by Nathan Hale
Booford

LOL grade school level..stay in school.

[Nathan Hale]

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 21:31:15 +0100 (BST)

Post by Nathan Hale
Booford

LOL grade school level..stay in school.

It was an obvious parody of your ignorant, redneck behavior you
moron.

[burfordTjustice]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:04:37 +0100 (BST)

Post by Nathan Hale

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 21:31:15 +0100 (BST)

Post by Nathan Hale
Booford

LOL grade school level..stay in school.

It was an obvious parody of your ignorant, redneck behavior you
moron.

very weak, stay on the porch.

[mail.m2n Anonymous]

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

That's what your mom said when she coughed you out head first on
a concrete floor.

[burfordTjustice]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 02:16:30 +0800 (SGT)

Post by mail.m2n Anonymous

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500

Subject: Re: Almost all WannaCry victims were running Windows 7
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 08:29:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Organization: albasani.net

So what?

That's what your mom said when she coughed you out head first on
a concrete floor.

Very weak, Stay on the Porch...

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

Post by burfordTjustice
On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:54:17 +0200 (CEST)

Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

You are not believable.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion because it doesn't matter.

[tesla sTinker]

Ransom ware is mal ware, same shit.

the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...

It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.

Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.

http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

Post by Anonymous Remailer (austria)
One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better
handle on how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and
judging from the early figures, the story seems to be almost
entirely about Windows 7.
According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98
percent of the computers affected by the ransomware were running
some version of Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand
running Windows XP. 2008 R2 Server clients were also hit hard,
making up just over 1 percent of infections.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-
version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

[Nathan Hale]

Post by tesla sTinker
Ransom ware is mal ware, same shit.
the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...
It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.
Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.
http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

Post by Anonymous Remailer (austria)
One week after it first hit, researchers are getting a better
handle on how the WannaCry ransomware spread so quickly — and
judging from the early figures, the story seems to be almost
entirely about Windows 7.
According to data released today by Kaspersky Lab, roughly 98
percent of the computers affected by the ransomware were running
some version of Windows 7, with less than one in a thousand
running Windows XP. 2008 R2 Server clients were also hit hard,
making up just over 1 percent of infections.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15665488/wannacry-windows-7-
version-xp-patched-victim-statistics

Excellent point.

Thanks.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by tesla sTinker
Ransom ware is mal ware, same shit.
the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...
It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.
Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.
http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

I get my "novirus" at debian.org.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by tesla sTinker
Ransom ware is mal ware, same shit.
the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...
It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.
Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.
http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

I get my "novirus" at debian.org.

Can you P2P stream NFL games on debian?

[Char Jackson]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:06:40 -0700, tesla sTinker

Post by tesla sTinker
Ransom ware is mal ware, same shit.
the way this company programmed its malware remover,
is that if its not of the op system files, it checks it,
and marks it. So its like, say goodbye to malware if
your using it...
It will locate several of them first time you run it.
And it matters not, if you have run malware removers before.
And what is amazing, is this thing is only 2mb in size.
Would not be caught dead without it... Malware Remover
Or many of his other good small softwares that are free.
http://www.novirusthanks.org/free-tools/

Since you keep promoting that site, I wonder whether you have a
connection to it in some way. Is it your site? Just curious.