Guys, I'm going to be perfectly honest. Im not 100% sure if the ban was IP based or not. It could of also been a keylogger or something. I am however doubtful as I have formatted twice and changed my passwords multiple times.
Im doing a virus scan ATM. With spybot search and destroy I got 25 files. And with MSE, so far, Ive gotten 1.
But, the file spybot detected were all changes I had previously made such as file association and system changes. With MSE, i got a spybot known as win32/OpenCandy. Im still doubtful that this is the virus though, can anyone clarify this for me?
Hey ESEA
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
Guys, I'm going to be perfectly honest. Im not 100% sure if the ban was IP based or not. It could of also been a keylogger or something. I am however doubtful as I have formatted twice and changed my passwords multiple times.
Im doing a virus scan ATM. With spybot search and destroy I got 25 files. And with MSE, so far, Ive gotten 1.
But, the file spybot detected were all changes I had previously made such as file association and system changes. With MSE, i got a spybot known as win32/OpenCandy. Im still doubtful that this is the virus though, can anyone clarify this for me?
Im doing a virus scan ATM. With spybot search and destroy I got 25 files. And with MSE, so far, Ive gotten 1.
But, the file spybot detected were all changes I had previously made such as file association and system changes. With MSE, i got a spybot known as win32/OpenCandy. Im still doubtful that this is the virus though, can anyone clarify this for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCandy
if you formatted twice you should be fine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCandy
if you formatted twice you should be fine
if you formatted twice you should be fine
shifty1gthen you got all autistic
talk about the kettle calling the pot black
[quote=shifty1g]then you got all autistic [/quote]
talk about the kettle calling the pot black
talk about the kettle calling the pot black
Well, I formatted once after the ban since I wanted to completely obliterate all traces of the keylogger. The second time was just because I needed to reformat to install my OS onto a new SSD.
Anyways, I'm two hours into the scan, and I havent detected anything yet. My laptop's scan has already finished and nothing came up. I'm going to rescan using Malwarebytes to see if it picks anything up.
Well, I formatted once after the ban since I wanted to completely obliterate all traces of the keylogger. The second time was just because I needed to reformat to install my OS onto a new SSD.
Anyways, I'm two hours into the scan, and I havent detected anything yet. My laptop's scan has already finished and nothing came up. I'm going to rescan using Malwarebytes to see if it picks anything up.
Anyways, I'm two hours into the scan, and I havent detected anything yet. My laptop's scan has already finished and nothing came up. I'm going to rescan using Malwarebytes to see if it picks anything up.
Naw, the last thing we need is more leagues. Having too many will just divide the community further. I'm interested in seeing how cevo does though. I just wish they would allow me to use the millions of configs that I have, oh well.
ps. I didnt -frag your post if that's what you're thinking, I actually +fragged it. Not that I care or anything.
Naw, the last thing we need is more leagues. Having too many will just divide the community further. I'm interested in seeing how cevo does though. I just wish they would allow me to use the millions of configs that I have, oh well.
ps. I didnt -frag your post if that's what you're thinking, I actually +fragged it. Not that I care or anything.
ps. I didnt -frag your post if that's what you're thinking, I actually +fragged it. Not that I care or anything.
I'll talk to the CEVO admin about changing league rules on the configs. I'll tell you how it turns out
I'll talk to the CEVO admin about changing league rules on the configs. I'll tell you how it turns out
Virus scan completed:
win32/dynamic!dtc //false positive from Syndicate crack [Private tracker]
win32/prast1rts //false positive from Silent Hill 2 Trainer [Private tracker]
win32/bumat!rts //false positive false positive from Silent Hill Homecoming crack [Private Tracker]
win32/Nistio.A // potentional virus, although, it's a crack as well, and I havent executed it yet so I should be safe. I removed it anyways.
win32/Ursap!rts // false positive from STALKER: Clear Sky Trainer [Private tracker]
All the "viruses" I've detected were off of my external harddrive, and they were all game torrents too. So, I'm fairly certain that I don't have a keylogger installed.
I'll rescan with malwarebytes and see what happens.
Edit: Malwarebytes didn't pick anything up. My system is clean, it wasn't a keylogger.
Virus scan completed:
win32/dynamic!dtc //false positive from Syndicate crack [Private tracker]
win32/prast1rts //false positive from Silent Hill 2 Trainer [Private tracker]
win32/bumat!rts //false positive false positive from Silent Hill Homecoming crack [Private Tracker]
win32/Nistio.A // potentional virus, although, it's a crack as well, and I havent executed it yet so I should be safe. I removed it anyways.
win32/Ursap!rts // false positive from STALKER: Clear Sky Trainer [Private tracker]
All the "viruses" I've detected were off of my external harddrive, and they were all game torrents too. So, I'm fairly certain that I don't have a keylogger installed.
I'll rescan with malwarebytes and see what happens.
Edit: Malwarebytes didn't pick anything up. My system is clean, it wasn't a keylogger.
win32/dynamic!dtc //false positive from Syndicate crack [Private tracker]
win32/prast1rts //false positive from Silent Hill 2 Trainer [Private tracker]
win32/bumat!rts //false positive false positive from Silent Hill Homecoming crack [Private Tracker]
win32/Nistio.A // potentional virus, although, it's a crack as well, and I havent executed it yet so I should be safe. I removed it anyways.
win32/Ursap!rts // false positive from STALKER: Clear Sky Trainer [Private tracker]
All the "viruses" I've detected were off of my external harddrive, and they were all game torrents too. So, I'm fairly certain that I don't have a keylogger installed.
I'll rescan with malwarebytes and see what happens.
Edit: Malwarebytes didn't pick anything up. My system is clean, it wasn't a keylogger.
Figured it was shitty, but thanks to boulder, it's worse than I thought
Figured it was shitty, but thanks to boulder, it's worse than I thought
http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/video-games-dealers/e-sports-entertainment-in-commack-ny-78614
http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/video-games-dealers/e-sports-entertainment-in-commack-ny-78614
BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
visitnigBBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
[quote=visitnig]BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.[/quote]
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
FzerovisitnigBBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.
[quote=Fzero][quote=visitnig]BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.[/quote]
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.
stringer_bellFzeroYou can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.visitnigBBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?
I'm not saying it's perfect but a few hundred a year should really matter to a small business especially since they can/will take that money as complete business expense
[quote=stringer_bell][quote=Fzero][quote=visitnig]BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.[/quote]
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.[/quote]
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?
I'm not saying it's perfect but a few hundred a year should really matter to a small business especially since they can/will take that money as complete business expense
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.[/quote]
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?
I'm not saying it's perfect but a few hundred a year should really matter to a small business especially since they can/will take that money as complete business expense
Fzerostringer_bellFzeroYou can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.visitnigBBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?
I'm not sure how what I posted has anything to do with amazon or paypal or any credit card company. What the BBB does is accept unverified complaints from any consumer, and then charge businesses who want to clear those records. Basically, if you don't want to subscribe, the BBB will leave any false or misleading report up until you essentially pay them to take it down. It's a scam.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843
[quote=Fzero][quote=stringer_bell][quote=Fzero][quote=visitnig]BBB is a pretty bad way of judging small business tbh, it asks companies to pay them money or they list them as unaccredited.[/quote]
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.[/quote]
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?[/quote]
I'm not sure how what I posted has anything to do with amazon or paypal or any credit card company. What the BBB does is accept unverified complaints from any consumer, and then charge businesses who want to clear those records. Basically, if you don't want to subscribe, the BBB will leave any false or misleading report up until you essentially pay them to take it down. It's a scam.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843
How does that not make sense? Visa, MC, discover all force fees for using them, why would if be different for BBB? They charge 97 a year generally (depends on size) but at the same time, if you're not accredited, like in this case, they will still say the rating that the business has. Just so everyone understands, the "F" rating is not from not being accredited but from user reviews. So I have no clue how it's a true argument.[/quote]
You can only contest false or misleading ratings/reports if you pay. It's an extortionate system.[/quote]
Same thing with amazon, paypal, all the CC's that I mentioned too. The idea of having to pay money for things like this is to keep scammers at bay. If someone had to pay no money and anyone could write comments, how would it be any different than Ebays shitty systems?[/quote]
I'm not sure how what I posted has anything to do with amazon or paypal or any credit card company. What the BBB does is accept unverified complaints from any consumer, and then charge businesses who want to clear those records. Basically, if you don't want to subscribe, the BBB will leave any false or misleading report up until you essentially pay them to take it down. It's a scam.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843
Swatt, the Nistio.A "virus" is a false positive from STALKER, I believe.
Swatt, the Nistio.A "virus" is a false positive from STALKER, I believe.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.