anyone not use an antivirus program?

[Behrluvr]

The executable file doing the damage is iexplore.exe or acrobat.exe. Not allowing an LUA to install it's own software is irrelevant, iexplore.exe IS allowed run, hence, the malware gets to do it's thing if it exploits a flaw in that exe.

How does this occur if neither acrobat.exe nor iexplore.exe is installed on my system?

No no no no no - you clearly have no idea what a buffer over flow bug is, or how it works.

A program like IE is running. It has a bunch of stuff in RAM, a mix of data and code, all of which is has permission to execute, because it put it there, and because it is a program that is allowed to run. With a buffer overflow you write data beyond the end of where it should have gone, and over into the bit of RAM owned by IE where IE is keeping it's executable code. IE then runs that code, assuming it is it's own code. The RAM belongs to IE, is edited by IE, and is executed by IE. It has all the permissions IE does.

In short - a LUA provides zero protection.

Again, as Internet explorer is not installed on my system, how do IE buffer overruns occur?

And if you are making such an issue of buffer overruns, I assume you have a buffer overrun memory firewall installed on your system? Why fool around with overruns when a free solution is available? I also assume you regularly test your system for buffer overrun vulnerabilty? Again using a free tester.

The blaster worm exploits a flaw in the RPC service which is on by default, and runs with system level privileges. It doesn't matter a JOT what user is logged into the system, or what level that user's account has, Blaster does not enter userspace, it works at the system service level. User accounts literally don't enter into it. Like I said - Blaster can infect a system WITH NO ONE LOGGED IN AT ALL.

I get the impression you do not understand how modern multi-user operating systems are architected at all. There simply is no link between low-level services and regular user accounts.

Again, the Remote Procedural Call you reference must occur through port 135. When you get infected the RPC will invoke a system shutdown. At this initial stage you can abort the shutdown and trivially remove Blaster.

Assuming a successful restart occurs and not a crash, an entry is made into the following Registry key. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\windows auto update The string found at this entry is mblast.exe

Notice the registry key is Windows update. A limited user does not have the required permissions to run Windows Update.

I thought you didn't run any AV? So how exactly do you expect anti viral software to pick it up? If you are running all the software you list above then it's hardly realistic to say you don't run AV! Also - Window automatically runs a malware removal tool behind the scenes as part of Windows Update these days. So goodness knows what has been cleaned up after you that you're just not aware of.

I never said any such thing, you did. In your zeal to insult me and brag about your knowledge, you didn't take the time to read my post. I said during the past 11 years of visiting some of the most dangerous webs out there on a daily basis, I have yet to experience a single malware event. I said that was due to my using a Limited User account.

I said I run all sorts of anti malware software and they always return zero results. I also said every one of the computer noobs who I help, who I've set up in LUAs, have also had zero malware events since I set them up.

Also I never said I run Windows Update, you did. I have banned Active X controls from my system as they are extremely dangerous security risks. I obtain critical updates from 3rd party sources and install what I consider needed manually.

I have taken numerous steps to lock down my computer with settings, its easy to do, a LUA is the main one and just one of many.

That and you could be lucky. You have been doing the equivalent of sleeping around without protection. Not everyone who does that gets an STD, and not everyone who fails to run AV gets nobbled. Luck exists, it is real.

Then you must consider Unix users and Mac users internet whores as well since I am doing pretty much the same thing they do, that is not surfing as ROOT.

 

[subbrew]

I use AVG Free. Just google it and get the free version, they update it often.

 

[gb2000ie]

How does this occur if neither acrobat.exe nor iexplore.exe is installed on my system?

They were just EXAMPLES - there have been buffer overflow bugs in just about every app ever written. FireFox has had loads, VLC has had loads. If you are running any program at all, it will have and will again suffer from buffer overflow vulnerabilities - hence the need to patch patch patch.

If you are running any program on a computer, even just the OS itself, there is a chance you could get hit by buffer overflow attack, and running an LUA does NOTHING to protect it.

And if you are making such an issue of buffer overruns, I assume you have a buffer overrun memory firewall installed on your system? Why fool around with overruns when a free solution is available? I also assume you regularly test your system for buffer overrun vulnerabilty? Again using a free tester.

Now you're just making sit up - there is no such thing as a 'buffer overun memory firewall'.

There is no magic wand to detect bugs. If there were, there would be no bugs in any software ever!

It's true that DEP and ASLR make it harder to exploit buffer overruns, but not all programs support DEP, and even then, attackers are finding way around that.

One reason Win7 has proved less dangerous than WinXP is the implementation of DEP and ASLR, but Win 7 is NOT immune from attack by any means, just look at the long long long list of critical flaws in Windows that MS have patached. Each one MS rate as critical is as dangerous as the one that made blaster possible remember!

Again, the Remote Procedural Call you reference must occur through port 135. When you get infected the RPC will invoke a system shutdown. At this initial stage you can abort the shutdown and trivially remove Blaster.

Blaster happened to use that port, and blaster happened to trigger a shut down. It is just ONE EXAMPLE - that does not mean that ALL malware must behave like that! There have been flaws in LOADS of services on LOADS of ports on LOADS of OSes and they do no all require a reboot!

You are clinging on to the fact that you know how to deal with one very old worm as proof that you can deal with any worm - but you are deluding yourself.

Notice the registry key is Windows update. A limited user does not have the required permissions to run Windows Update.

But the system user DOES, and worms that come in through system services RUN AS SYSTEM - Windows is a multi-user OS - it doesn't matter AT ALL what you are running as - if the exploited service runs as system then the malware is running as system.

As I said, you are clearly dangerously ignorant on the workings of modern operating systems.

I never said any such thing, you did. In your zeal to insult me and brag about your knowledge, you didn't take the time to read my post. I said during the past 11 years of visiting some of the most dangerous webs out there on a daily basis, I have yet to experience a single malware event. I said that was due to my using a Limited User account.

You have been lucky! You are doing a dangerous thing with fake protection and you've gotten away with it. Good for you! That does not make it safe, and that does not mean people would be wise to follow your advice. Or indeed that your luck will continue to hold.

I said I run all sorts of anti malware software and they always return zero results. I also said every one of the computer noobs who I help, who I've set up in LUAs, have also had zero malware events since I set them up.

Also I never said I run Windows Update, you did. I have banned Active X controls from my system as they are extremely dangerous security risks. I obtain critical updates from 3rd party sources and install what I consider needed manually.

OMG - are you INSANE???? You get updates from third parties? Seriously? That could be riddled with ANYTHING!!!! Holly mother of devine mercy - that is the most insane thing I have ever heard in my whole life in IT!

DO NOT FOLLOW THIS MAN'S ADVICE - IT IS DANGEROUS

Just for the record, Active X is only dangerous in the context of web browsing. In the context of Windows Update it is perfectly safe. In fact, it is not only safe, it is a must to keep you safe.

I have taken numerous steps to lock down my computer with settings, its easy to do, a LUA is the main one and just one of many.

Then you must consider Unix users and Mac users internet whores as well since I am doing pretty much the same thing they do, that is not surfing as ROOT.

Err - no - I am not saying there is anything wrong with using a ULA, like you say, as a Mac user I do it too. What I am saying is that using a ULA provides only limited protection, it is absolutely positively not a replacement for AV. It is no a panacea, it is just a minor hurdle that is easily crossed by the bad guys.

 

[gb2000ie]

To restore some sanity to this thread - here is some simple advice for staying safe from the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). You'll find similar information on other national CERTs, but US CERT have a really great website, so I generally recommend them as a great source for security news and information.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/home-network-security/

 

[Behrluvr]

They were just EXAMPLES - there have been buffer overflow bugs in just about every app ever written. FireFox has had loads, VLC has had loads.

Thats not what you said, you said "The executable file doing the damage is iexplore.exe or acrobat.exe." You mentioned nothing about examples. If you are going to give advice on computer message boards then you have to speak with precision. You did not reference Firefox nor VLC. I am well aware of any and all security threats on popular software and if its warranted I update my system to take such threats into account. Otherwise I don't worry about it and let the restricted permissions of a LUA keep me safe.(as its done with a 100% success rate for over a decade now)

If you are running any program on a computer, even just the OS itself, there is a chance you could get hit by buffer overflow attack, and running an LUA does NOTHING to protect it.

Well then you may as well stay indoors with the shades drawn, doors locked and hide under the bed. If even just the OS running is subject to viral attack one may as well give up on computing , technology, and the entire modern world.

Now you're just making sit up - there is no such thing as a 'buffer overun memory firewall'.

There is no magic wand to detect bugs. If there were, there would be no bugs in any software ever!

Here's one of many memory firewalls, this one is free. Comodo Memory Firewall and here's another - Buffershield, and here's a buffer overrun vulnerability testing utility.

It's true that DEP and ASLR make it harder to exploit buffer overruns, but not all programs support DEP, and even then, attackers are finding way around that.

Look, this is a general interest message board, no one here knows what all these buzzwords you are tossing out mean. The way we do things on message boards is first define the terms. No one knows that DEP means data execution prevention nor do they know how DEP relates to computer security. If you want to discuss such rarified topics please define your terms first or even better, take it to a more sophisticated tech specialized board.

You are clinging on to the fact that you know how to deal with one very old worm as proof that you can deal with any worm - but you are deluding yourself.

I simply tossed it out for a casual comment, you are the one who went ballistic over Blaster. I was perfectly happy to let blaster remain back in 2003 - you are the one harping on it.

As I said, you are clearly dangerously ignorant on the workings of modern operating systems.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the infection protocol of the Blaster family. I gave a quick run down of exactly how a member of the blaster family delivers its payload. You have demonstrated no such working knowledge whatsoever.

Furthermore your posting style is unprofessional and based on name calling, demeaning attitude, and condescension. You claim to be some sort of computer expert yet your style is marked by vague advice, hysteria, cryptic buzzwords, emotion, imprecision, as well as bad spelling, grammar, and syntax. If there is one thing a computer professional needs its precision. You sir lack that in your postings.

OMG - are you INSANE???? You get updates from third parties? Seriously? That could be riddled with ANYTHING!!!! Holly mother of devine mercy - that is the most insane thing I have ever heard in my whole life in IT!

DO NOT FOLLOW THIS MAN'S ADVICE - IT IS DANGEROUS

The 'net is filled with perfectly legitimate 3rd party sources of software. Do you think Microsoft is the only software house out there? Just about all software originates from someone other than MS. How can you be so closed minded to cavalierly dismiss other perfectly legitimate software authors? Ones which you haven't even heard their name let alone checked them out. Also , MS updates are available from highly reputable 3rd party sources, Windizupdate is one such source. There are plenty more.

Just for the record, Active X is only dangerous in the context of web browsing. In the context of Windows Update it is perfectly safe. In fact, it is not only safe, it is a must to keep you safe.

I can't think of one geek worth his salt , who would allow Active X controls to run on their Windows machine. They are extremely dangerous and ought to be banned. They have no legitimate reason to exist other than the stubbornness of MS toward javascript. Besides if one cares about security and is not using the insecure IE browser then Active X is a moot point.

Err - no - I am not saying there is anything wrong with using a ULA, like you say, as a Mac user I do it too. What I am saying is that using a ULA provides only limited protection, it is absolutely positively not a replacement for AV. It is no a panacea, it is just a minor hurdle that is easily crossed by the bad guys.

Err, the buzzword is 'LUA' not 'ULA', if you are going to use buzzwords, please get your terms straight.

Ahah, I just knew it, a Mac user, that explains it. Mac users are legendary for being defensive, for having a superior attitude, and for being difficult to discuss computers with.

And who said the LUA is a replacement for an AV? Seems like you are the one saying that. I said a LUA prevents 99.999% of executable code from running . It provides a remarkable degree of safety from viral attack,stopping just about everything dead cold. (YEs even Blaster) In my case the AV provides confirmation that my settings and my security measures have been successful. Not a single malware event ever in 11 years. Thats not luck , thats proof and confirmation that my technique works.

I suggest you begin by first testing your machine for buffer overrun vulnerabilities using the free tester I linked and then installing the memory firewall I also linked - which you didn't know existed and claimed I made up. Oops I forgot, you don't have to , you run a Mac.

 

[Behrluvr]

To restore some sanity to this thread - here is some simple advice for staying safe from the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). You'll find similar information on other national CERTs, but US CERT have a really great website, so I generally recommend them as a great source for security news and information.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/home-network-security/

Here's an even better piece of advice. Don't buy into the hype that getting infected with a virus is some doomsday, end-of-the-world, life changing disaster. At worst its an inconvenience. Your life in not at an end because you have a virus.
.
.
Out on the 'net the AV houses make it sound like its the end of the world to get infected. In the grand scheme of things, even the worst malware is no more than a minor nuisance. You can easily remove just about any bit of malware with little to no drama. You can put up simple defenses and then stop worrying about it. Very simple things, run a Limited User Account, learn how to adjust some security setting in your browser. Avoid high target software like IE and Acrobat and Winamp and Outlook Express.


Suppose the worst happens , you get infected, so what? Fix it, its easy. Most malware is little more than a nuisance. Use google to research the behavior, ID the culprit and find out how others have fixed it. Its guaranteed you are not the first person to get infected, the solution is out there on the 'net. Find it.

Relax and stop worrying, its simply not that serious a disaster, you'll survive.

 

[Nicholas]

I use AVG Free (Vista) No Problems

 

[wasihere]

I don't use one at all. I don't run as administrator, I check my downloads carefully. Also my browser doesn't load (most) plugins.

I feel safe running without an antivirus, though if I suspect I get one, I just reinstall... Kinda paranoid in that regard.

 

[gb2000ie]

Thats not what you said, you said "The executable file doing the damage is iexplore.exe or acrobat.exe." You mentioned nothing about examples. If you are going to give advice on computer message boards then you have to speak with precision. You did not reference Firefox nor VLC.

Apologies I was not clearer. My bad.

Well then you may as well stay indoors with the shades drawn, doors locked and hide under the bed. If even just the OS running is subject to viral attack one may as well give up on computing , technology, and the entire modern world.

No - that was not my point at all - my point is that you need to do a lot more to protect yourself than just running an LUA - it doesn't protect at all from the single most common exploitable software flaw.

Here's one of many memory firewalls, this one is free. Comodo Memory Firewall and here's another - Buffershield, and here's a buffer overrun vulnerability testing utility.

These products certainly claim to prevent buffer overflows - but do they? Antivirus2010 claimed to be an AV - it was a virus! Do they explain how their app is supposed to work? Or does it simply turn on DEP if your system and software are up to it? Are there any independent tests?

The 'net is filled with perfectly legitimate 3rd party sources of software. Do you think Microsoft is the only software house out there? Just about all software originates from someone other than MS. How can you be so closed minded to cavalierly dismiss other perfectly legitimate software authors? Ones which you haven't even heard their name let alone checked them out. Also , MS updates are available from highly reputable 3rd party sources, Windizupdate is one such source. There are plenty more.

Sorry - we seem to have had another misunderstanding. My point is that the only people who you should get software updates from, as the people who make the thing you are updating. If you run Windows, you get updates from that from MS, if you run Flash you get updates for that From Adobe, if you run FireFox you get updates for that from Mozilla and so forth.

I would be the LAST person on earth to suggest that all software comes from MS. With the exception of Microsoft Flight Sim I have yet to like a single one of their products!

I'm a huge fan of open source in fact, and would advise anyone to use FireFox, Thunderbird, and VLC over IE, Outlook and windows media player.

But - you should get updates directly from the source, over SSL. In other words, use the apps own built-in update methods, which are thankfully getting more and more automated so that doing the right thing is nolonger hard work.

I can't think of one geek worth his salt , who would allow Active X controls to run on their Windows machine. They are extremely dangerous and ought to be banned. They have no legitimate reason to exist other than the stubbornness of MS toward javascript. Besides if one cares about security and is not using the insecure IE browser then Active X is a moot point.

I agree that active X is BAD on the internet. I said so in fact. But, that does not mean it does not have legitimate uses. A REALLY important legitimate use is Windows Update. (there are also other legitimate uses within corporate intranets). I know LOADs of geeks who use Active X, they ONLY use it for Windows Update, but that's all I'd ever suggest people use it for.

There have been many bad things that have happened with Active X on the public internet, but Windows Update has never been compromised. It has proven itself to be safe. Leave Active X alone on your system, let it update you, and do all your internet browsing on Firefox or chrome where you're nice and safe from Active X on the net, where you are right, it does not belong.

Err, the buzzword is 'LUA' not 'ULA', if you are going to use buzzwords, please get your terms straight.

I apologise if my dyslexia offends you.

Ahah, I just knew it, a Mac user, that explains it. Mac users are legendary for being defensive, for having a superior attitude, and for being difficult to discuss computers with.

ROFL - did you say something about name calling? I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

As it happens, I'm more a Linux user, but I like to use Macs for my desktop machines. I also use Windows in work. I'm at home on any OS really, but if you think you can judge me based on the fact that my preference is a Mac, fine, work away. But it's not really doing anyone any good is it?

And who said the LUA is a replacement for an AV? Seems like you are the one saying that. I said a LUA prevents 99.999% of executable code from running . It provides a remarkable degree of safety from viral attack,stopping just about everything dead cold. (YEs even Blaster) In my case the AV provides confirmation that my settings and my security measures have been successful. Not a single malware event ever in 11 years. Thats not luck , thats proof and confirmation that my technique works.

My point from the start is that you place too much value on the protective powers of a LUA. I stand by that point. It only holds true in a universe where there are no vulnerabilities in your OS and in the software we run. That is just not the universe we live in.

I have tried by example to illustrate my point, but you seem to take each of my examples as being the sole possible attack rather than the simple illustration they were intended to be.

I'll try to be more clear. There is a long history of many flaws in Windows as well as in the apps people run to access the net and media, which render the protections offered by an LUA useless. As I said in my very first post on the matter, an LUA does not provide zero protection, but it doesn't do that much either.

I suggest you begin by first testing your machine for buffer overrun vulnerabilities using the free tester I linked and then installing the memory firewall I also linked - which you didn't know existed and claimed I made up. Oops I forgot, you don't have to , you run a Mac.

Reality proves that it is not possible to have a simple tester to detect all buffer overflows. To do that the tester would have to give every possible input to every app on your machine and watch the result. Companies like Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Adobe run automated testing tools against all their apps before release, but they cannot catch all possible bugs, and don't, as is clearly demonstrated by the monthly avalanche of updates from all these companies.

It is wrong to pretend that there is a silver bullet out there. There are always people prepared to sell you a silver bullet, but there are also people trying to sell you perpetual motion machines!

I interpreted your original comment as saying that people should run with an LUA instead of AV - was I wrong in that assumption? If I was, I apologise. If not, then allow me to try to clarify what I have been trying to say:

Yes, people should run as an LUA - it will give a small amount of protection, but, it is not a replacement for AV. Windows users really do need to run AV. It should be a small and efficient AV, and not something horrific like Norton or McAffee, but you should run AV. I personally recommend the free one from Microsoft. It's small, efficient, and not a resource hog.

I hope that clears up the point of view I have been attempting to express.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Here's an even better piece of advice. Don't buy into the hype that getting infected with a virus is some doomsday, end-of-the-world, life changing disaster. At worst its an inconvenience. Your life in not at an end because you have a virus.

That really depends on what you have and do on your computer. If you have all your data safely backed up, and if you never do anything financial on your machine, and don't keep any sensitive data on it, then you are right, malware is just an inconvenience.

Is that realistic though? Is it fair to say that most people have enough data on their machine to enable identity theft? And is it fair to say that most people do either banking or shopping on line? I think those are two very fair assumptions. So, to most people in the modern world, getting a nasty piece of malware really could be a very big deal indeed.

Now - of course not all bits of malware are that dangerous. If you're lucky you'll get one that just turns your machine into a zombie on someone's botnet, or just fucks with you or your data for fun, but key loggers are real, as are spy bots that search for data for identity theft. There are very real risks out there that really can do serious damage.

It's reasonable to do everything you can to protect yourself. What do you loose by running a good AV? Nothing really, but you gain signifficant, though not perfect, protection. If you run a horrific piece of bloatware like Norton then sure, you have a lot to loose, but I'd never suggest anyone run that or McAfee!

In the grand scheme of things, even the worst malware is no more than a minor nuisance. You can easily remove just about any bit of malware with little to no drama.

I'm sorry but that is not true. Do you deny there are keyloggers out there trying to steal credit card numbers and bank login details? Or do you consider loosing all your money a minor nuisance? How about having your machine hijacked to host child porn or do something else elicit? Is it a minor nuicence when the police come calling because your IP has been doing something illegal?

Do you deny the existence of the millions-strong botnets out there that are for hire to every criminal who wants them?

The days when viruses were written by kids in their basement for a laugh are over, malware now comes largely from organised criminals - who want to rob you in some way.

You can put up simple defenses and then stop worrying about it. Very simple things, run a Limited User Account, learn how to adjust some security setting in your browser. Avoid high target software like IE and Acrobat and Winamp and Outlook Express.

Everyone should definitely do these things - they are great advice. But they do not replace AV or a firewall. They just compliment such things.

I wish the world were still as innocent as you remember it. 10 years ago you would be right. But we don't live 10 years ago, we live now!

B.

 

[sallywoppy]

i deleted my norton from my comp..just was tired of it..and than tried avg..its a free antivirus program...and man...it fucked my comp big time..had to wait like 30mins for it to load...so i deleted it to..and now i have no virus protection...but im thinking..do i need it?

yes it helps alot

 

[topdog]

I just want to add in here that if you haven't used Norton in the last year and a half it's gotten much better. I swore off Norton when I moved to Windows Vista - Norton was such a hog. But for the past three months I've been running the beta of Norton 360 version 5 and it's been great on Windows 7. I like the fact that it not only does AV, but adds extra browser and password security, scans e-mail, provides 2 GB online storage for backups.

 

[josh_the_hot_boy]

Avast is free and great Use it my self.

 

[jsk80]

Spybot works for me. No problems for the last two years.

 

[Ascareus]

I use KIS 2011
so far good for me
want to change into bit defender total security

 

[geetee]

Microsoft Security Essentials.

 

[tudia_paktam]

Avira Antivir Personal Antivirus work best for me.

 

[reman]

I support the comments about Norton 360. It is now much better and hogs less resource. Wish I could say the same about Vista!

 

[travieso94]

I'm using Avast and it works with me. I was tired of paying for that big corporation that is Symantec.

im using avast too

 

[tremaine]

I use the free version Avira Anti-Vir which was recently improved so now it actually works lol.

Since no anti-virus stops all malware I have a few scanners and I run a scan about once a week rotating between them.

All of the following are free downloadable scanners that you can run whenever:

--Malwarebytes
--Spybot Search & Destroy
--Super Anti Spyware
--Trend Micro House Call Malware Scanner
--Hitman Pro (Good for 30 days at the most)
--F-Secure Easy Clean
--Windows Defender Anti-Spyware Scanner (can be tricky to update)

The following ones are customized for when your system is seriously infected and I don't use these as often as I do the above ones, and yet I do use these every few months even if I don't think my system is screwed just to be on the safe side (because you never know for sure because malware can hang out for weeks or months before showing itself):

--Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool Anti-Virus
--Norton Power Eraser
--Avira Anti-Vir Removal Tool

All of the above scanners are free and will both scan and remove items for free. Removal is often done with quarantine rather than with full deletion.

There is also Lavasoft Ad-Aware but WARNING: When you download it, by default the active guard will be on and it will probably crash your system due to being in conflict with your existing active guard. If you get the Ad-Aware (which is really a full anti-virus and not just an "anti-ads") you MUST IMMEDIATELY turn the active guard off (or turn your existing active guard off). But if you can do that Ad-Aware is nice because it gets some malware that most or all of the others won't get.

Spybot Search and Destroy has an active guard but that one generally does not cause my system to crash so I actually have two active guards on at once: Spybot and Anti-Vir. (Actually, its more complicated than that because Spybot apparently has two active guards and I think I have one of them on and one of them off.)

Some of the scanners update automatically and some require you to remember to update them before you use them; you should always check to make sure the scanner is updated before you scan.

In general, don't start getting all of these scanners unless you are really good at managing programs including knowing how to access them, knowing how to update them, knowing how to set preferences, and knowing how to delete them. Unless you are good at managing and controlling programs these anti-virus programs can actually be more trouble than they are worth. I have learned many tricks and procedures that allow me to control these programs rather than have them control me. It took a long long time to learn all of the rules and all of the tricks involved with anti-virus programs including scanners.

Cheers.