1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

The Inquirer Hit by a Virus

Discussion in 'News' started by Jimmy 2004, Dec 4, 2007.

  1. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    Any techPowerUp! readers who also read The Inquirer may want to stay away from The Inquirer for a while after reports that the site is infected with a virus. According to NOD32, the virus is a variant of the BAT/Emilia.D trojan, although the screenshots would suggest that this could be result of heuristic proection rather than a confirmed infection. The screenshots from VR-Zone are below, so I’d recommend that you don’t go to the Inquirer for at least a few hours to be on the safe side, and if you do then make sure your virus software is up-to-date.
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: VR-Zone
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2007
  2. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
  3. F-22 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    103 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    I just went to that site and I have no Virus.
  4. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    At least you don't think you do...

    Did you visit that story in the screenshots?
  5. FR@NK

    FR@NK

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    521 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82

    That article looks interesting....
  6. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    I don't get it -- the HTML file had a virus? I'm thinking this guy's computer was just infected and for some reason he thought it was the site.
  7. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,114 (2.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    I would have laughed so hard if the news source was Fudzilla :p.
  8. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,743 (0.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Location:
    Norway
    this is some ads that has virus in them
    this has happend to many sites that gives you "scan you computer" ads etc
    so it can happen to ANY site, that uses some dubleclick or some other ads thingy, i think TechPowerUp uses text (google ads) and png/flash images added by w1zzard, not dubleclick etc
  9. kakazza New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    470 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Will people ever learn to not make JPEG Screenshots of their desktop and use PNG instead?...
  10. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,743 (0.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Location:
    Norway
    +1 :D
  11. v-zero Guest

    NOD32 is seriously retarded software. You might as well ask a cucumber to accurately detect viruses.
  12. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,114 (2.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    Why? As far as I can tell, JPEG is superior. Screenshots I took just now:

    JPEG: 61KB

    PNG: 611KB
  13. theonetruewill New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,996 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Location:
    London - Close your eyes and you'll see me
    Nod32 is damn good. The heuristics can just be set to be extremely sensitive. Don't knock it just because it has the options to allow scanning for unidentified threats.
  14. kakazza New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    470 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    5 bucks say you took the screenshot of your background image ;)

    Just took one myself of the full screen with Firefox/TPU open.

    1920x1200
    PNG: 92KB
    JPEG 80% Quality: 291KB
    JPEG 100% Quality: 660KB

    JPEG _will_ give you noticable artifacts with text, as it softens the edges, adding ugly shit around the text. JPEG is considered a "lossy format", you will lose quality, whereas PNG is lossless. :)

    For photos (graphic background, i.e. non-browser, non-text screenshots) JPEG will result in a smaller filesize.



    Edit:
    Comparision:
    Top: JPEG 80%
    Middle: PNG
    Bottom: JPEG 100%

    [​IMG]

    Compare quality and colors (my nick) :)
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  15. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,114 (2.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    I stand corrected, I will from hence forth save all my images as PNGs whenever possible :toast:.
    kakazza says thanks.
  16. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Although you are right about png being superior, I get a lot better results with jpeg than that of your example. 100% same true color and much sharper letters and I am talking about 7 out of 12 quality in Photoshop CS3. At 1280x960 that jpg is 302 KB and the png is 357KB. So I guess it depends on the program you use to save them.
  17. wiak

    wiak

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,743 (0.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Location:
    Norway
    come on stop whining about jpg vs png hehe
    NOD32 is the best antivirus, its lightwight, scans fast, dosnt use you whole system,
    people that use norton are stupid, it takes around 80% of you system resources from you

    so i will recommend NOD32 before ever recommending norton
    norton has to much crap and uses javascripts in their interface, nod32 uses pure c+ interface so no problems what so ever with missing text etc

    you wont even notice NOD32 running, and if you enable advanced herutices it will give you false postives on crackes/keygens irc system scripts and so on but it wont on the default settings
  18. F-22 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    103 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    [​IMG]
    ---
    [​IMG]

    PNG is only smaller when dealing with TINY files... I posted my results 2 times. The top one is JPEG80, the bottom one is PNG32. The JPG result image is 77.7KB while the PNG result image is 90.6KB.
  19. kakazza New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    470 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7

    Resaving fucked up jpegs with artifacts as png doesn't really help... but thanks for trying ;)
  20. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    Btw, I would have done better quality screenies but those are straight from VR-Zone - I didn't want to get the virus myself.

    And obviously there is no point 'resaving fucked up jpegs' as kakazza put it :)
  21. Necrofire

    Necrofire New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    586 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    45
    I did look at the article...waht does the virus do?
    png is superior when saving text and pics with a small amount of colors.
    jpeg is superior when saving complex pictures like from a camera.

    png is superior over jpeg for screenshots involving simple colored windows and lots of text.

    the png is bigger on the jpeg comparison, because the jpeg inside has lots of colors and noise.
  22. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,630 (3.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,360
    dont forget about gif which works on every platform, even with transparency (no png transparency on ie). file sizes are pretty nice too, especially for screenshots with lots of text. also it doesnt have those gay jpg artifacts

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page