Securable's first v1.0 release... [1.0.2568.0]

Gang,

Thanks to all of the great help, suggestions, and feedback from 
everyone in "grc.thinktank", SecurAble is at first v1.0 release.

http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe

I fixed the last few remaining issues, such as the "clicking on 
an underlined word" problem, and added hyperlink support with 
references to the SecurAble-related Security Now podcasts.

If anyone finds any remaining typos or problems I will, of 
course, be all over that ... but it sure looks like it's ready 
for release.  Yay!

Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's 
(already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now 
start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/12/2007 10:59:23 PM
grc.news.feedback 4181 articles. 0 followers. Follow

36 Replies
614 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 57

Steve Gibson wrote:
> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's 
> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now 
> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>

When can you announce that your website redesign is done so that you get 
going on that?
0
Kurt
1/13/2007 2:51:25 AM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>

That's one way to get things done!! :)

-- 
Matthew Doucette
http://xona.com/



0
Matthew
1/13/2007 6:30:20 AM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Matthew Doucette's post above]
> 
>>> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
>>> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
>>> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>
>> That's one way to get things done!! :)
> 
> Exactly!  <<grin>>  I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't
> sure that I could ... but now being truly committed to
> having it ready DOES help me to set priorities.  :)
> 
Slightly off topic, but...
Just making the transition from Windows to Linus (PCLinuxOS) and need to 
find out how to run SecurAble under Linux?

-- 
Louis "The Lip" Bone
0
Louis
1/13/2007 5:04:16 PM
[for the unabridged version, see Kurt Nelson's post above]

> When can you announce that your website redesign is done so
> that you get going on that?

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

Being a single stand-alone bit of freeware, the existing site's 
organization (or dis-organization :) will support that file's 
and page's added presence.

The site's menuing redesign will be needed before the cookie 
pages and the OpenVPN pages can be added since they represent a 
significant addition to the "too simple" current site layout.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/13/2007 6:35:38 PM
[for the unabridged version, see Matthew Doucette's post above]

> > Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
> > (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
> > start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>
> 
> That's one way to get things done!! :)

Exactly!  <<grin>>  I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't
sure that I could ... but now being truly committed to
having it ready DOES help me to set priorities.  :)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/13/2007 6:36:59 PM
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:35:38 -0800, Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see Kurt Nelson's post above]
> 
>> When can you announce that your website redesign is done so
>> that you get going on that?
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

He's just twisting your tail gently, Steve.  The idea being, making a
public commitment to have something done by a given time will add some
incentive as it's doing in the case of the SecurAble web page(s).

Just a fun was of saying it will be cool when the new CSS version of the
site goes live.  :-)

-- 
Bob Trevithick
Reg. Linux User #426103
Reply-to is valid

0
Bob
1/13/2007 7:50:45 PM
[for the unabridged version, see Bob Trevithick's post above]

> Just a fun was of saying it will be cool when the new CSS
> version of the site goes live.  :-)

Yes it will!

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/13/2007 7:55:21 PM
While scrubbing graffiti off the grc.thinktank walls, I heard Louis Bone
say:

> Steve Gibson wrote:
>> [for the unabridged version, see Matthew Doucette's post above]
>> 
>>>> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
>>>> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
>>>> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>
>>> That's one way to get things done!! :)
>> 
>> Exactly!  <<grin>>  I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't
>> sure that I could ... but now being truly committed to
>> having it ready DOES help me to set priorities.  :)
>> 
> Slightly off topic, but...
> Just making the transition from Windows to Linus (PCLinuxOS) and need to 
> find out how to run SecurAble under Linux?

If you don't already have WINE installed, open Synaptic and do so. Also
install "msfonts" and "msfonts-style" while you're there. When that's
done, just click on the Securable exec, and when you're prompted for
what to open it with, just type in "wine" (without the quotes).

Securable's version number will not display at the bottom of the window
due to a WINE bug, and the text windows will open at the end of the text
instead of the beginning, for the same reason... 

-- 
Dutch
Registered Linux User #391111 - PCLinuxOS 0.93a
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://www.imilly.com/noregrets
0
Dutch
1/13/2007 9:02:48 PM
Dutch wrote:
> While scrubbing graffiti off the grc.thinktank walls, I heard Louis Bone
> say:
>>>
>> Slightly off topic, but...
>> Just making the transition from Windows to Linus (PCLinuxOS) and need to 
>> find out how to run SecurAble under Linux?
> 
> If you don't already have WINE installed, open Synaptic and do so. Also
> install "msfonts" and "msfonts-style" while you're there. When that's
> done, just click on the Securable exec, and when you're prompted for
> what to open it with, just type in "wine" (without the quotes).
> 
> Securable's version number will not display at the bottom of the window
> due to a WINE bug, and the text windows will open at the end of the text
> instead of the beginning, for the same reason... 
> 
Thanx,  off to the wilds of Synaptic to explore..

-- 
Louis "The Lip" Bone
0
Louis
1/13/2007 9:29:08 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> If anyone finds any remaining typos or problems I will, of 
> course, be all over that ...

I just tried it for the first time.

The keyboard shortcut for the "About" button in the bottom left doesn't
work for me (I expected it to be <Alt>+<A>, or maybe <Alt>+<Shift>+<A>,
seeing as the underlined character is upper-case).

Also, the speckley grey background makes the text a bit harder to read
(but that's just my opinion) ;-)
0
gdb
1/13/2007 10:06:20 PM
[for the unabridged version, see gdb's post above]

> I just tried it for the first time.

I'm glad you did!


> The keyboard shortcut for the "About" button in the bottom
> left doesn't work for me (I expected it to be <Alt>+<A>, or
> maybe <Alt>+<Shift>+<A>, seeing as the underlined character
> is upper-case).

Great catch!  There was actually a lot wrong with the handling 
of the modalness of that button and the shortcuts.  So I just 
completely reworked the handling of all that so that it's all 
correct.

Thanks!!

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/14/2007 2:01:31 AM
In article <MPG.20132ed78f58921410c1@4.79.142.203>, news06_@_grc.com 
says...
> So I just 
> completely reworked the handling of all that so that it's all 
> correct.

I'd be nice to be able to access the other information by keyboard.  If 
there is a way to get the long description of Hardware D.E.P. et al, it 
isn't obvious to me.
0
cyberpear
1/14/2007 7:43:12 AM
cyberpear wrote:
> Steve Gibson wrote:
>> gdb wrote:
>>> The keyboard shortcut for the "About" button in the bottom
>>> left doesn't work for me
>> Great catch!

You're welcome.  Just downloaded again and it's fixed.  You emailed me
ages ago and pointed out a typo in my program's help file, so I'm just
returning the favour. :)

> I'd be nice to be able to access the other information by keyboard.  If 
> there is a way to get the long description of Hardware D.E.P. et al, it 
> isn't obvious to me.

Using the tab key to change focus between objects and pressing the
return key to activate the focussed object would be consistent with
Windows standards.

I guess one of the disadvantages of using such low-level languages is
having to implement this sort of thing yourself, rather than having it
done for you.

Maybe use the shortcuts <Alt>+<1>, <Alt>+<2>, <Alt>+<3> for bit length,
DEP and virtualisation respectively too?
0
gdb
1/14/2007 3:39:07 PM
[for the unabridged version, see cyberpear's post above]

> I'd be nice to be able to access the other information by
> keyboard.  If there is a way to get the long description
> of Hardware D.E.P. et al, it isn't obvious to me.

Ah, that's a nice idea.  I've just updated SA with another new 
low-visibility feature: The ability to display the app's entire 
RichEdit file through the UI.  See the Context Menu, or Alt-S.

:)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/14/2007 7:24:51 PM
In article <pan.2007.01.13.19.50.45.219389@invalid.invalid>, Bob@invalid.invalid 
says...
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:35:38 -0800, Steve Gibson wrote:
>
>> [for the unabridged version, see Kurt Nelson's post above]
>> 
>>> When can you announce that your website redesign is done so
>>> that you get going on that?
>> 
>> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.
>
>He's just twisting your tail gently, Steve.  The idea being, making a
>public commitment to have something done by a given time will add some
>incentive as it's doing in the case of the SecurAble web page(s).
>
>Just a fun was of saying it will be cool when the new CSS version of the
>site goes live.  :-)
>
>
Samuel Johnson:
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it 
concentrates his mind wonderfully."
http://www.samueljohnson.com/mortalit.html

-R
0
MrRee
1/15/2007 2:57:12 PM
Ran fine here....found my P4 1.9 Gig CPU which dont have hardware DEP....or 
the vitrtual thingy. The info provided by clicking on the items were very 
helpful.

BTW, could a BIOS be written to have DEP for CPU's that dont have it or what 
about a PCI add in card? 


0
default
1/16/2007 2:42:08 AM
[for the unabridged version, see default's post above]

> BTW, could a BIOS be written to have DEP for CPU's
> that don't have it or what about a PCI add in card?

Unfortunately neither notions would work.  It needs to be 
internal to the processor.  Intel and clone processors have 
always been able to "mark" virtual memory pages as read/write or 
read-only.  But that's the extent of it.  The idea of flagging 
pages as "non-executable" is the direct result of the recent 
realization that this would/could be an extremely useful 
addition.  But it's entirely dependent upon the processor's 
internal logic checking any memory page's flags prior to 
executing instructions from that page.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
 always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
 --------------------------------------------------------------
0
Steve
1/16/2007 6:14:07 AM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see default's post above]
> 
>> BTW, could a BIOS be written to have DEP for CPU's
>> that don't have it or what about a PCI add in card?
> 
> Unfortunately neither notions would work.  It needs to be 
> internal to the processor.  Intel and clone processors have 
> always been able to "mark" virtual memory pages as read/write or 
> read-only.  But that's the extent of it.  The idea of flagging 
> pages as "non-executable" is the direct result of the recent 
> realization that this would/could be an extremely useful 
> addition.  But it's entirely dependent upon the processor's 
> internal logic checking any memory page's flags prior to 
> executing instructions from that page.
> 
I really don't want to extend any grief on this point, but I just am 
trying to understand what is going on.
I will quote from one of my previous posts (corrected):
 >>>>
Here is a typed in excerpt from the book "Inside OS/2", published in 
1988. Yes, it is quite "old school"; the forward is by Bill Gates. It 
was a different time, a time when the 286 CPU was to solve all the 
problems of DEP, even before the internet made them so important.
(...)
0- A program can't execute instructions from within a data segment. 
Attempting to load a data selector into the CS register (usually via a 
far call or a far jump) causes a GP fault.
0- A program can't execute instructions from within a data segment. 
Attempting to load a data selector into the CS register (usually via a 
far call or a far jump) causes a GP fault.
0- A program can't write into a code segment. Attempting to do so causes 
a GP fault.
 >>>>
This book would seem to indicate that what you have said above was not 
true of the 286. This was not "the extent of it". I have always thought 
the 386+ CPUs as extensions of that one.
Is this book wrong? Is this not DEP? What happened?
0
Chip
1/17/2007 2:00:24 AM
"Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2011b2a548a70eac10b2@4.79.142.203...
>
>snip>
>
> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Steve.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
> always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
> --------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first news link (at newsvine.com) for SecurAble I've seen so far - 
I'm sure there are others.

http://dturnbull.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/18/527069-securable-determine-your-processor-security-features

Alan 


0
alan
1/18/2007 10:57:52 PM
[for the unabridged version, see alan's post above]

> This is the first news link (at newsvine.com) for SecurAble I've seen so far - 
> I'm sure there are others.
> 
> http://dturnbull.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/18/527069-securable-determine-your-processor-security-features

Cool!  :)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.
0
Steve
1/18/2007 11:19:06 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> Gang,
>
> Thanks to all of the great help, suggestions, and feedback from
> everyone in "grc.thinktank", SecurAble is at first v1.0 release.
>
> http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
>
> I fixed the last few remaining issues, such as the "clicking on
> an underlined word" problem, and added hyperlink support with
> references to the SecurAble-related Security Now podcasts.
>
> If anyone finds any remaining typos or problems I will, of
> course, be all over that ... but it sure looks like it's ready
> for release.  Yay!
>
> Since Leo and I have already announced SecurAble for next week's
> (already recorded) Security Now! episode ... I'll definitely now
> start working on its companion web page!!  <<grin>>

running securable.exe resulted in error:

"The NTVDM CPU has encoutered in illegal instruction.
CS:0dce IP:0109 OP:63 74 20 68 61 Choose 'Close' to terminate the 
application."

AMD Athlon XP 3200+

What else would you need to know?


jorp

0
jorp
1/19/2007 5:55:35 AM
[for the unabridged version, see Chip Select's post above]

> I really don't want to extend any grief on this point,
> but I just am trying to understand what is going on.

> I will quote from one of my previous posts (corrected):
>  >>>>
> Here is a typed in excerpt from the book "Inside OS/2", published in 
> 1988. Yes, it is quite "old school"; the forward is by Bill Gates. It 
> was a different time, a time when the 286 CPU was to solve all the 
> problems of DEP, even before the internet made them so important.
> (...)
> 0- A program can't execute instructions from within a data segment. 
> Attempting to load a data selector into the CS register (usually via a 
> far call or a far jump) causes a GP fault.
> 0- A program can't execute instructions from within a data segment. 
> Attempting to load a data selector into the CS register (usually via a 
> far call or a far jump) causes a GP fault.
> 0- A program can't write into a code segment. Attempting to do so causes 
> a GP fault.
>  >>>>
> This book would seem to indicate that what you have said above was not 
> true of the 286. This was not "the extent of it". I have always thought 
> the 386+ CPUs as extensions of that one.
> 
> Is this book wrong? Is this not DEP? What happened?

<<grin>>

Being "old school" myself I was also initially confused when
I heard the idea of "execution prevention" presented as a new 
idea.

The answer to your question is that the old "segmented" model 
which appeared after the 8080 and 8086 era, first embodied by 
the 268 processor, *DID* have this capability.  Individual 
"segments" could have their access rights managed with a great 
degree of freedom.

But with the evolution of the Intel chipset family, specifically 
the jump from 16-bit-based segmentation to 32-bit addressing, 
the notion of "segmentation" was gleefully tossed out the window 
in favor of today's "flat model".  Without segments we don't 
have those capabilities.

At the same time, we got a built-in "virtual memory manager" 
with (by default) 4k byte pages where individual pages could
be marked with a much more limited set of access privileges
-- read and write, but not execute.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.
0
Steve
1/19/2007 9:56:57 PM
[for the unabridged version, see jorp's post above]

> running securable.exe resulted in error:
> 
> "The NTVDM CPU has encoutered in illegal instruction.
> CS:0dce IP:0109 OP:63 74 20 68 61 Choose 'Close' to
> terminate the application."
> 
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+
> 
> What else would you need to know?

Under what OS did you run SecurAble??

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.
0
Steve
1/19/2007 9:58:08 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Chip Select's post above]
> 
>> I really don't want to extend any grief on this point,
>> but I just am trying to understand what is going on.
> 
(...)
> 
> <<grin>>
> 
> Being "old school" myself I was also initially confused when
> I heard the idea of "execution prevention" presented as a new 
> idea.
> 
> The answer to your question is that the old "segmented" model 
> which appeared after the 8080 and 8086 era, first embodied by 
> the 268 processor, *DID* have this capability.  Individual 
> "segments" could have their access rights managed with a great 
> degree of freedom.
> 
> But with the evolution of the Intel chipset family, specifically 
> the jump from 16-bit-based segmentation to 32-bit addressing, 
> the notion of "segmentation" was gleefully tossed out the window 
> in favor of today's "flat model".  Without segments we don't 
> have those capabilities.
> 
(...)
Sorry about the double paste in my post.
Thanks for the reply... I kind of figured that this was what was going 
on, that the notion of "segmentation" was gleefully tossed out the 
window, but needed to hear someone else voice the effect, as I get bored 
talking to myself.
So, off to find the money and reason for new hardware to get back to 1988...
0
Chip
1/20/2007 2:13:01 AM
"Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.2011b2a548a70eac10b2@4.79.142.203...

> During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
> always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe

Nothing there at the moment!

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee. 


0
Brian
3/9/2007 9:11:42 PM
"Brian Gregory [UK]" <ng@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:essiil$2gmk$1@news.grc.com...
> "Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2011b2a548a70eac10b2@4.79.142.203...
>
>> During the development of "SecurAble" the current release 
>> will
>> always be located: 
>> http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
>
> Nothing there at the moment!

From Steve's post of 18th Jan:

The SecurAble EXE has been removed from "/miscfiles/" where 
it's
been hanging out during development.  It's now among all of 
the
other GRC freeware, and available at:

http://www.GRC.com/files/securable.exe


0
Paul
3/9/2007 9:17:13 PM
"Brian Gregory [UK]" <ng@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:essiil$2gmk$1@news.grc.com...
> "Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2011b2a548a70eac10b2@4.79.142.203...
>
>> During the development of "SecurAble" the current release will
>> always be located:  http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
>
> Nothing there at the moment!

Try this:

http://www.grc.com/securable.htm

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://www.grc.com/groups/techtalk:155486


0
Robert
3/9/2007 9:17:38 PM
Steve Gibson typed:
> Gang,
>
> Thanks to all of the great help, suggestions, and feedback from
> everyone in "grc.thinktank", SecurAble is at first v1.0 release.
>
> http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
>
> I fixed the last few remaining issues, such as the "clicking on
> an underlined word" problem, and added hyperlink support with
> references to the SecurAble-related Security Now podcasts.
>
> If anyone finds any remaining typos or problems I will, of
> course, be all over that ... but it sure looks like it's ready
> for release.  Yay!
<snip>

For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting 
Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY

I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to Grisoft 
as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(

-- 
YoKenny 


0
YoKenny
7/17/2007 10:19:01 AM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:19:01 -0400, YoKenny wrote:

[]
> For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting 
> Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY
> 
> I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to Grisoft 
> as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(

I'm sure it's a false positive as well :)

I came across this problem a couple of days ago when I was saving some of
Steve's freeware. I already had Securable and every time I opened the
folder with it in, I got the warning you're referring to.
0
Paul
7/17/2007 10:38:29 AM
Paul McDonald typed:
> YoKenny wrote:
>
>> For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting
>> Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY
>>
>> I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to
>> Grisoft as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(
>
> I'm sure it's a false positive as well :)
>
> I came across this problem a couple of days ago when I was saving
> some of Steve's freeware. I already had Securable and every time I
> opened the folder with it in, I got the warning you're referring to.

I went over to the AVG forum and I see that the false positive with 
Securable has been reported and I insured that I have AVG's latest 
definition files but I still get the trojan warning:
http://forum.grisoft.cz/freeforum/read.php?4,104353

-- 
YoKenny 


0
YoKenny
7/17/2007 10:56:11 AM
YoKenny wrote:
> For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting 
> Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY

> I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to Grisoft 
> as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(

File:securable.exe
Scan taken on 17 Jul 2007 16:58:53 (GMT)
A-Squared Found nothing
AntiVir Found nothing
ArcaVir Found nothing
Avast Found nothing
AVG Antivirus Found SHeur.APY
BitDefender Found nothing
ClamAV Found nothing
Dr.Web Found nothing
F-Prot Antivirus Found nothing
F-Secure Anti-Virus Found nothing
Fortinet Found nothing
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Found nothing
NOD32 Found nothing
Norman Virus Control Found nothing
Panda Antivirus Found nothing
Rising Antivirus Found nothing
Sophos Antivirus Found nothing
VirusBuster Found nothing
VBA32 Found nothing

Conclusion= False Positive, but we already knew that. 8-)
-- 
Regards, Jimmy Johnson
Registered Linux User #380263
Registered Linux Computer #279395
0
Jimmy
7/17/2007 5:06:33 PM
YoKenny wrote:
> For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting 
> Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY

> I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to Grisoft 
> as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(

False positive, "securable.exe" has been sent to virus_at_grisoft_dot_com.
-- 
Regards, Jimmy Johnson
Registered Linux User #380263
Registered Linux Computer #279395
0
Jimmy
7/17/2007 5:31:16 PM
Jimmy Johnson wrote:

> False positive, "securable.exe" has been sent to virus_at_grisoft_dot_com.

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email.

Please let us inform you, that this false positive will be fixed in the
upcoming virus update.

We are sorry for any inconvenience.

     Best regards,

     Daniel Urminsky
     AVG Technical Support"
-- 
Regards, Jimmy Johnson
Registered Linux User #380263
Registered Linux Computer #279395
0
Jimmy
7/17/2007 7:44:21 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:19:01 -0400, "YoKenny" <YoKenny@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Steve Gibson typed:
>> Gang,
>>
>> Thanks to all of the great help, suggestions, and feedback from
>> everyone in "grc.thinktank", SecurAble is at first v1.0 release.
>>
>> http://www.GRC.com/miscfiles/SecurAble.exe
>>
>> I fixed the last few remaining issues, such as the "clicking on
>> an underlined word" problem, and added hyperlink support with
>> references to the SecurAble-related Security Now podcasts.
>>
>> If anyone finds any remaining typos or problems I will, of
>> course, be all over that ... but it sure looks like it's ready
>> for release.  Yay!
><snip>
>
>For some reason AVG Free with its latest definitions is detecting 
>Securable.exe as Trojan horse SHeur.APY
>
>I'm sure this is a false positive but I can't report the problem to Grisoft 
>as they only accept problem reports from paying customers. :(

The false positive seems to be fixed, now.
0
Tom
7/17/2007 10:38:30 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:38:30 +1200, Tom Cole wrote:
[]
> The false positive seems to be fixed, now.

Yep. I've just updated AVG and it no longer sees Securable as a problem :)
0
Paul
7/18/2007 12:01:22 AM
Paul McDonald wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:38:30 +1200, Tom Cole wrote:
> []
>> The false positive seems to be fixed, now.
> 
> Yep. I've just updated AVG and it no longer sees Securable as a problem :)

It seems that AVG was not the only one to have a problem with
securable.exe, if you use one of these you may want to let them know it
is a false positive. :-)

Antivirus  	Version  	Last Update  	Result

CAT-QuickHeal   9.00	        2007.07.20	suspicious - DNAScan
eSafe	        7.0.15.0	2007.07.19	suspicious Trojan/Worm
Panda	        9.0.0.4 	2007.07.22	suspicious file
Sunbelt	        2.2.907.0	2007.07.21	VIPRE.suspicious
-- 
Regards, Jimmy Johnson
Registered Linux User #380263
Registered Linux Computer #279395
0
Jimmy
7/22/2007 1:18:28 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

0.0.0.0
Can someone tell me the function of this scan? FWIN,2001/08/28,20:06:43 -6:00 GMT,0.0.0.0:800,255.255.255.255:800,UDP "Ben" <notben@home.com> wrote in message news:9mhion$2hf9$1@news.grc.com... > Can someone tell me the function of this scan? > FWIN,2001/08/28,20:06:43 -6:00 GMT,0.0.0.0:800,255.255.255.255:800,UDP Ben, I haven't a clue. 800 TCP mdbs_daemon 800 UDP mdbs_daemon http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/firewall-seen.html http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/firewall-seen.html#3.6 http://www.robertgraham.com/pubs/firewall-seen.html#3.2 -- ...

0.0.0.0 ????
Obviously a local IP, but what are its functions/purpose? Thanks for educating the uneducated. In article <MPG.18bf7ade16e851cb989680@news.grc.com>, shr@p.com says... > > > Obviously a local IP, but what are its functions/purpose? > > Thanks for educating the uneducated. > Any available adapter - i.e. not bound to specific IP address. -- Bloated Elvis In article <MPG.18bf7ade16e851cb989680@news.grc.com>, shr@p.com says... > > > Obviously a local IP, but what are its functions/purpose? > > Thanks for educating the une...

0.0.0.0.bootpc -- what's this?
i seem to have a lot of conversation with 0.0.0.0 on all sorts of ports. right now i block it all except for the dns with apparently no ill effects, but what is it? another is KRNL386.EXE which i also block. can i make these things stop? i'm running Win98 with Norton (configured with a catch-all in the trojan list -- i.e. if not specifically allowed somewhere else, block it) -- Greetings! - "michelle" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:a11o5k$28gg$1@news.grc.com... > i seem to have a lot of conversation with 0.0.0.0 on all sorts of ports. > right n...

!27.0.0.1 vs. 0.0.0.0
I can use any number of tools to see what ports I have listening and/or connected. But among the *Listening* ports, some are 127.0.0.1 and some are 0.0.0.0. What is the difference between 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0 ? Since I've got both - there MUST be a difference. Thanks, Alan 0.0.0.0 stands for all interfaces (example: yourIPaddress,127.0.0.1-127.254.254.254) 127.0.0.1 stands for local interface only (127.0.0.1) > 0.0.0.0 stands for all interfaces > (example: yourIPaddress,127.0.0.1-127.254.254.254) > > 127.0.0.1 stands for local interface only (127....

Upgrade of 11.0.0 to 11.0.1 AND 11.0 EBF's
X86 Update of 11.0.0 to 11.0.1 was released 03 Mar 2009 Update of 11.0.0 to build 1598 was released 23 Apr 2009 Should 11.0.0 to build 1598 be applied to 11.0.1 ? ChuckGo No. EBFs should only be applied against the MR that it is intended. The 1598 EBF is intended for 11.0.0. And EBF for 11.0.1 is pending. - chris Charles.Gogolin@stanleyassociates.com wrote: > X86 > > Update of 11.0.0 to 11.0.1 was released 03 Mar 2009 > > Update of 11.0.0 to build 1598 was released 23 Apr 2009 > > Should 11.0.0 to build 1598 be applied to 11.0.1 ? ...

63.0.0.0.0/255..0.0.0
Has anyone ever heard of this or know where it goes to.It was asking permission to act as a server? Thanks in advance for any help. "pb" <nothing@nomail.com> wrote in message news:9pa1u4$38b$1@news.grc.com... > Has anyone ever heard of this or know where it goes to.It was asking > permission to act as a server? Thanks in advance for any help. If it shows in your firewall log, can you post a copy of it? -- � -- Robert grc.com forum FAQ - http://grc.com/discussions.htm grc.com forum quick reference - http://grc.com/nntpquickref.htm grc.com forum disclaim...

[ 0.0.3486.0 ] -- Today's First Update
Gang... This fixes everything that we currently know about: Sparky's (Paul B's) router should again be working -- though we will also want to make sure that NO ONE has any stuck "Determining Nameserver Status..." messages since that's what broke DNSB with Paul's router. The Conclusions tab now displays the nameserver ranking table for both misordered *and* properly ordered rankings. And the new table should work for Pataka and everyone else using pre Win2K versions of Windows. :) While you guys stew on this... I'm off to implement an excitin...

[ 0.0.3487.0 ] -- Today's First Refresh
Gang... This update should hopefully make Ninho and other GBridge users happy ... which is a good thing, since doing so should be a side effect of my having made the Senderbase lookup process substantially more robust overall. :) This also preempts a problem I realized could occur with the properly-ordered resolver ranking table. Now I'm going to plow into the WINE table display problem and see what I can come up with. -- ________________________________________________________________ Steve. Working on: GRC's DNS Benchmark utility: http://www.grc.co...

Updating Issue: when I'm trying to update from 1.0.60504.0 to 1.0.60731.0
Hi guys, I'm developing a site (which is still Local and not uploaded yet) that uses Atlas technology. Everything was good since I just tried to update Atlas Toolkit and Atlas Toolkit Extender to add some extra feature like rating and etc. I got "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." ! firstly I thought it's because of my settings but I search and found that there is no problem in that matter, when I replaced new ones (Microsoft.AtlasControlExtender.dll, and AtlasControlToolkit.dll) with older ones, the problem resolved. But I can't use new features on my site! Can an...

BitCannon V.0.0.0.0.1
I got fed up with how slow file transfers over instant messaging clients are, so I made this: http://ossbox.com/bitcannon.htm (sorry for the terrible web page) _QUOTE_ BitCannon is an easy to use secure file transfer program. It lets you send and receive files over the internet through a direct and encrypted connection. By using BitCannon, you'll be able to send files to your friends as fast as your internet connection will allow. All of your data is securely encrypted and authenticated, so you'll never have to worry about anyone else being able to see the files you send! ...

Updates after 1.5.0.7 (1.5.0.9, 2.0.0.1)can't access the web.
Name: Jay Product: Firefox Summary: Updates after 1.5.0.7 (1.5.0.9, 2.0.0.1)can't access the web. Comments: see summary Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7 ...

IP Address 0.0.0.0.0
Some Agent which crosses proxy (MS ISA proxy) are register to the database with 0.0.0.0. When the agent send a request to the server for register, the field ContactAddress has 0.0.0.0 .0 The same PC - Agent without passing a proxy (another location) send a good ContactAdress IP when it register to the server. (Proxy or not) how agent defined addresses IP before to send for registration ? (Locally, with a service network, patchlink network) christian Astinx, can you post the agent update log? -- Shaun Pond PatchLink Update Agent.log 2006/10/23 10:45:14.033...

127.0.0.1 Sweet 127.0.0.1
Four days off starting tomorrow and am staying home! Love it!! -- seabirdII ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think I heard seabirdII say something like: > Four days off starting tomorrow and am staying home! Love it!! Nice! I went through a couple months of 4 day weekends, they get addicting. Stevo On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:38:10 +0000, Stevo wrote: > Nice! I went through a couple months of 4 day weekends, they get > addicting. Same with 4-day work weeks, which I start this week until the end of November...

mvctoolkit Assembly 'MVCToolkit, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' uses 'System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.6.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' which has a high
I have visual studio 2008 SP 1 .I created a new MVC Web Project and added a reference to the MVCToolkit dll.I tried to build and it shows following exception Error    5    Assembly 'MVCToolkit, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' uses 'System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.6.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' which has a higher version than referenced assembly 'System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'    f:\MVC\MVCProjects\MyFirstMVCApplicati...

Web resources about - Securable's first v1.0 release... [1.0.2568.0] - grc.news.feedback

Resources last updated: 12/16/2015 3:01:52 PM