How to determine if Spector Pro Spyware is running on my computer?

I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.

I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.

Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?

Donna wrote:
> I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
> might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.
>
> I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.
>
> Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
> if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?

Dear, Dear, Dear - you don't trust him - he doesn't trust you
......suggest the answer lies not in the Software - but in a heart to
heart talk?

..or even a Marriage Guidance Counsellor ...

best wishes for the future

On May 18, 10:57*am, Donna <donnaoh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
> might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.
>
> I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.
>
> Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
> if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?

It is all suspicions but anyway;

To elminate keyloggers, download and install "Spybot search and
destroy" to scan your system.
To sniff network activities, download and install "Ethereal"
http://www.ethereal.com

For other issues above, Ask Dr. Phil http://www.drphil.com ....!!

all the best.

-aljuhani

aljuhani wrote:


> To elminate keyloggers, download and install "Spybot search and
> destroy" to scan your system.


A lot of people still believe in scanning. Quite sad. Even further,
considering what Spybot S&D claims about a provably clean and secured
system, it would be even more useless on a surely infected system.

But what qualification of security expertise should we expect from someone
who's abusing MSIE as a webbrowser...

On May 18, 2:42*pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> aljuhani wrote:
> > To elminate keyloggers, download and install "Spybot search and
> > destroy" to scan your system.
>
> A lot of people still believe in scanning. Quite sad. Even further,
> considering what Spybot S&D claims about a provably clean and secured
> system, it would be even more useless on a surely infected system.
>
> But what qualification of security expertise should we expect from someone
> who's abusing MSIE as a webbrowser...

We can only suggest available tools.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 05:07:31 -0700 (PDT), aljuhani wrote:

> We can only suggest available tools.

Hi everyone,

I agree that scanning probably won't work because the software runs on a
windows system.

Looking at the disk from another system might work but that would take
daily removal of the hard drive and I'd have to know what to look for
anyway.

I was asking here because I am assuming that the network activity back to
the mother ship would be the weak point in detecting this software.

I'm still convinced there will likely be signature network activity
pinpointing the use of this software - which - by the way - all of you
should also check for. But, what do we check specifically for? And how?

Googling for "Spector network activity" I found this article
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/spector/ which said there is a certain
connection to the domain U2A1376GF-43TY-245B.COM with this software.

May I ask how you would recommend a novice look for connections (perhaps in
the past) to this domain and how to block them moving forward?

aljuhani wrote:

> On May 18, 2:42 pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
>> aljuhani wrote:
>>> To elminate keyloggers, download and install "Spybot search and
>>> destroy" to scan your system.
>> A lot of people still believe in scanning. Quite sad. Even further,
>> considering what Spybot S&D claims about a provably clean and secured
>> system, it would be even more useless on a surely infected system.
>>
>> But what qualification of security expertise should we expect from someone
>> who's abusing MSIE as a webbrowser...
>
> We can only suggest available tools.


No, we can also suggest methods and procedures. That is, ensuring that
there's no keylogger in first place.

Donna wrote:


> I was asking here because I am assuming that the network activity back to
> the mother ship would be the weak point in detecting this software.


Unlikely. It's called steganographic tunneling.

The real weak point is that the software, if installed, changes the state of
the system. Comparing against a known good state will show it up.

"Donna" wrote in <news:TiRXj.8983$nl7.1206@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>:

> I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
> might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.
>
> I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.
>
> Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
> if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?

If this is a shared computer, save all your data files to removable
media. Then reformat the drive. When the husband asks, say you don't
know why the drive got erased except for some strange error message that
popped up saying "Critical system error: Spectre Pro buffer overrun
generated raw disk error." Maybe he'll think twice before he tries to
install it again. In the meantime, get your own computer and lock it
up.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:57:41 -0700, Donna <donnaohl26@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I found a receipt in my husband's credit card bill for something I think
>might be something called Spectre Pro Spyware wireless keylogger.
>
>I presume the software must "phone home" somehow the keylogging activity.
>
>Is there any way, perhaps by looking at network activity, that I can tell
>if my husband bought it for use on my winxp computer?

I would visit there website
http://www.spectorsoft.com/products/...quirements.asp
and call the support department to find out what the key sequence is
to bring up the application. If it works then you know it is there.

Also you could install and run
Windows Defender (from Microsoft website)
Ad-Aware
SpyBot Search and Destroy.

One of the three should find it if it is there.


You could also get your own copy and put on your husbands computer so
you can monitor his e-mail to see if he is monitoring yours.

Steve B.

On May 18, 3:59*pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> aljuhani wrote:
> > We can only suggest available tools.
>
> No, we can also suggest methods and procedures. That is, ensuring that
> there's no keylogger in first place.

Absolutely agree but needed to define an initial start point.

Now given the nature of such software, monitoring Network traffic
would be the appropriate method to start with.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 09:52:54 -0400, Steve B. wrote:

> http://www.spectorsoft.com/products/...quirements.asp
> and call the support department to find out what the key sequence is
> to bring up the application. If it works then you know it is there.

When I pressed CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-S, nothing happened (that is the default
method of bringing up the program) but according to what I read, the
Spector program can be configured to bring it up using any other key
combination.

I also checked the registry key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\
ShellServiceObjectDelayLoad and C:\windows\system32 as described at
http://www.farmfreshmeat.com/2007/04...keylogger.html

It doesn't seem to be here. That's good. I'll go to the Spector web site to
see what I can find out about disabling the program anyway, just to be
sure.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 09:52:54 -0400, Steve B. wrote:

> You could also get your own copy

In the spirit of the best defence is a good offense, I went to the Spector
web site to find out something very interesting.

They disable the keylogging software remotely if they find you using it on
another machine. Hmmm... how do they know if you've used it on another
machine.

Taking advantage of that 'feature', all we'd have to do is make our
machines "look" like another machine and the software would disable itself.

Pretty simple. Now, the question is, how does Spector "know" what machine
it's running on? And, how would we spoof that item?

Does anyone know what to do to "spoof" another computer?









Note: Here is their license information saysing what I summarize above:
http://www.spectorsoft.com/support/S...ndows/faq.html
The Spector Pro software license agreement allows a user to install on an
additional computer, if the new installation is being done to a computer
that is replacing the original computer which Spector Pro was installed.
The original computer must be taken out of service.

This policy allows customers who are upgrading to newer computers the
ability to continue to use their Spector Pro license with their new
computer. This transfer of the license from an old computer to a new
computer can only be done once. Any installations of a Spector Pro serial
number on more than two computers or on 2 or more computers simultaneously,
will result in the Spector Pro serial number being disabled and the
software being deactivated.

"Donna" wrote in <news:AAaYj.9093$nl7.7023@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>:

> In the spirit of the best defence is a good offense, I went to the Spector
> web site to find out something very interesting.
>
> They disable the keylogging software remotely if they find you using it on
> another machine. Hmmm... how do they know if you've used it on another
> machine.
>
> Taking advantage of that 'feature', all we'd have to do is make our
> machines "look" like another machine and the software would disable itself.
>
> Pretty simple. Now, the question is, how does Spector "know" what machine
> it's running on? And, how would we spoof that item?
>
> Does anyone know what to do to "spoof" another computer?

Oh, so the "problem" wasn't what you claimed it to be in your first
post.

From: "G. Morgan" <no_em@il.invalid>


| I've seen this individual trolling in several other NG's including
| alt.comp.freeware, news.software.readers, and alt.home.repair.

| Same Modus operandi is taking shape here already. Don't let me stop y'all
| from replying - this one has the potential for 300+ deep.


Thanx!

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On May 19, 1:23*pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
wrote:
> | I've seen this individual trolling in several other NG's including
> | alt.comp.freeware, news.software.readers, and alt.home.repair.

G. Morgan is an idiot.
He can't stand it when people have manners and use the groups
properly.
I googled for these posts and found them all to be reasonable and
informative with pictures and URLs and phone numbers all.
They are limited to certain newsgroups. They are all on topic. They
all are cheerful and attentive.
What Morgan doesn't like is the system working. He really can't stand
when it works well.
Look up HIS posts for example.
He's got nothing to offer except to malign good people's reputations.
Idiot.
G. Morgan is an idiot.

From: <execadmin158@gmail.com>



| G. Morgan is an idiot.
| He can't stand it when people have manners and use the groups
| properly.
| I googled for these posts and found them all to be reasonable and
| informative with pictures and URLs and phone numbers all.
| They are limited to certain newsgroups. They are all on topic. They
| all are cheerful and attentive.
| What Morgan doesn't like is the system working. He really can't stand
| when it works well.
| Look up HIS posts for example.
| He's got nothing to offer except to malign good people's reputations.
| Idiot.
| G. Morgan is an idiot.

The information I have seen "G. Morgan" post is contrary to what you state.

You both have rights to your respective opinions.

The difference is Google Groupers don't have the credence of those who use News Clients.

BTW: Keylogger questions are indeed OT for alt.internet.wireless which negates your
statement.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

G. Morgan wrote:

> David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>> The information I have seen "G. Morgan" post is contrary to what you state.
>>
>> You both have rights to your respective opinions.
>
>
> Thanks David, on a side note... I bookmarked one of your pages just yesterday
> on the topic of security. Thanx for that>>
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html


If you carried these out, then... well... you spent a lot of time for
achieving absolutely nothing.

G. Morgan wrote:


>> If you carried these out, then... well... you spent a lot of time for
>> achieving absolutely nothing.
>
> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?


Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
opinions, but simple scientific facts.

On Tue, 20 May 2008 02:24:41 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>>G. Morgan wrote:
>>
>>> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The information I have seen "G. Morgan" post is contrary to what you state.
>>>>
>>>> You both have rights to your respective opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks David, on a side note... I bookmarked one of your pages just yesterday
>>> on the topic of security. Thanx for that>>
>>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
>>
>>
>>If you carried these out, then... well... you spent a lot of time for
>>achieving absolutely nothing.
>
> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?

Just ignore this person! He has wealth of knowledge but is incapable to
pass it on to those in need. He does not believe that newsgroups should be
used as a vehicle to provide (specific) assistance, go figure.

Reformatting of HDD is the preferred course of action!

"The only way to clean a compromised system is to flatten and rebuild.
That¢s right. If you have a system that has been completely compromised,
the only thing you can do is to flatten the system (reformat the system
disk) and rebuild it from scratch (re-install Windows and your
applications)..."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...mt/sm0504.mspx

There are however a number of reasons where this may not be possible and/or
achievable. Not everybody is technically apt to so or has an 'savvy'
acquaintance who may be able to assist. There are many users who don't live
in cities but reside in less developed environments where professional help
just does not exist. They may find the procedures as per:
http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html
too overwhelming and shy away from the perceived complexity.
The procedures as per:
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
(especially David's MULTI_AV Tool) have had helped solving uncountable
users over many years. And is IMO the next best thing to flatten and
rebuild an operating system. Moreover, the best to my knowledge, David
never has never denied anybody reasonable assistance figuring out malware
challenges.

> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
> opinions, but simple scientific facts.

Your advice is bogus, at best. If this is all you have to offer perhaps
shutting up would be better.

Jim Watt wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:41:01 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan <no_em@il.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Albeit the *****ing is interesting, nobody seems to
> have actually answered the original question ...
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

This is great... alt.comp.sec... where have you been all my life?

Bill Kearney wrote:

>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>
> Your advice is bogus, at best.


Calling trivial facts bogus is the reason why you should better shut up.

G. Morgan wrote:

> [alt.internet.wireless] removed from x-post
>
> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>>> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
>>> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?
>>
>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>
> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
> applying (freeware) solutions.


No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.

> The one-two punch of Adaware, and SpyBot S&D
> is often all it takes to clean an infected PC.


Gotta laugh even more. These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?

On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:48:40 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:

> G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> [alt.internet.wireless] removed from x-post
>>
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>
>>>> Ahh Sebastian, I've read your stuff. Your the one who thinks a clean
>>>> re-install is the only way to remove crapware, eh?
>>>
>>> Not if you have a decent backup. At any rate, this is not a matter of
>>> opinions, but simple scientific facts.
>>
>> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
>> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
>> applying (freeware) solutions.
>
> No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.
>
>> The one-two punch of Adaware, and SpyBot S&D
>> is often all it takes to clean an infected PC.
>
> Gotta laugh even more. These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
> perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
> even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?

Now, even if a certain Sebastian Gottschalk from .de is spewing snipes
proclaiming that using David's Multi-AV to clean operating systems isn't is
accord with (his) scientific facts...the pragmatic/realistic proof is in
the pudding. Users living in the Islands, Booneys, Bush, Outback, Beyond
the Black Stump etc. don't need your claptrap and don't care for your
condescending manner. As a frequent lurker in various pertinent newsgroups,
I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
beneficial.

So, Sebastian Gottschalk of .de, go and stick your scientific facts in one
of your bodily cavities, save us from your snipes and keep your
grandiosities within the circle of your associates in the sophisticated
milieu of Berlin. (You are a prime example of German arrogance but your
like minded buckos wouldn't know, now would they?).

Kayman wrote:

> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...

^^^^^
Proof that you're an idiot.

> the pragmatic/realistic proof is in the pudding.


There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
absence of obvious signs.


> I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
> beneficial.


Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
integrity. It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
work unreliable and potentially compromised.

G. Morgan wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>>> Well I would have to argue that it *is* a matter of opinion. I have
>>> personally resurrected many a machine from the brink of uselessness by
>>> applying (freeware) solutions.
>>
>> No, you didn't. In fact, it's likely that they're still compromised.
>
> Yes, I did. No they're not.


Trivial counter-proof of your statement: Universal trojan horses exist.

>> These tools are absolutely useless, since even at
>> perfectly clean machines they're claiming a lot of nonsense. How should they
>> even provide any useful information about a system that actively lies to them?
>
> That's not been my experience. I've run both on brand new images of XP SP2 &
> 3 and got -zero- false positives.


Question: What's the difference between a brand new image and a well secured
and hardened system?

> So, being the "scientist" you are I'm sure you will now be offering the proof
> of your hypothesis. I will be waiting.


Trivial: Just change
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\DataBasePath
and it will complain that something isn't right.

G. Morgan wrote:


> Universal Trojans? What the heck are you on about now? I said AA and SBS&D
> could (and does) remove a lot of malware making the system clean again.


And if the malware is an universal trojan horse, the system will remain
infected, albeit appearing clean. So stop claiming the contrary. Most
malware implementations are universal trojan horses.


> A well hardened system would be that image + a good A/V w/updates and a
> firewall running before the system becomes a node on the (Inter)network.


********. Not just that something like "good A/V" doesn't exist (both by
design and by availability), it's far away from being a security
improvement, and even further away from hardening.

But once again: I have setup a system that is provably clean, but not in a
fresh state. I have AdAware and Sypbot S&D run over it, and it claimed
multiple infections and security issues, which were provably nonsense. Your
example of how it behaves on a fresh systems doesn't disprove my claims at all.

>> Trivial: Just change
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Tcpip\Parameters\DataBasePath
>> and it will complain that something isn't right.
>
> Of course a good scanner is going to detect a change in the location of HOSTS,
> I fully expect it to.


Nonsense. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE is read-only to normal users, so this change
must have been applied by an administrator.
In fact, it was done exactly so for a better management of ACLs, grouping
together various relevant files for which one specifically limits access to
NT-AUTHORITY\SYSTEM and 'named' only.

And this was only one example. It also claims some group policy settings
(which improve security) as issues, noises about cookies with a DOMAIN
attribute (albeit the webbrowser is configured to not care about it), and
even complains about some known good software (like FlashGet).

Or did you ever try the "immunization" function? It spams the registry full
of useless CLSIDs, fails to do so on HKLM, claims success, then reports
incompleteness on next run, and tries again. ***?

Not gonna mention AdAware. One does need a test machine just to get around
the broken installer (which tries to write some temporary files to
%SystemRoot%\system32), and then it presents you with an almost empty GUI
(since it tries to use a MSHTML style GUI without even checking if rendering
pictures is active), and then pulls of **** similar to Sypbot S&D.


> Now, what about your claim that SBS&D and Ad aware detect false positives on a
> brand new XP install?


This claim is merely a fiction of yours, or your inability to read and
understand.

Aside from that, why can't it detect the most obvious security issues of
such a fresh install?

On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:

> Kayman wrote:
>
>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>
> ^^^^^
> Proof that you're an idiot.

Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.

>> the pragmatic/realistic proof is in the pudding.
>
> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
> absence of obvious signs.
>
Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.
>
>> I haven't seen one post where David's Multi-AV wasn't helpful and
>> beneficial.
>
> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
> integrity.

I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...

> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
> work unreliable and potentially compromised.

Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Kayman wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Kayman wrote:
>>
>>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>> ^^^^^
>> Proof that you're an idiot.
>
> Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.


Another proof that you're an idiot. You're claiming trivial scientific facts
as solely my facts, which is exactly your lack of arguments.


>> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
>> absence of obvious signs.
>>
> Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.


Yet another proof that you're lacking arguments.

>> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
>> integrity.
>
> I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...


I do. And interestingly most of them know what they're doing wrong, and
typically beg for the consequences not happening.

>> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
>> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
>> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
>
> Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
> someone, somewhere, may be happy."


If you would bother to understand what an universal trojan horse is (and
feel ashame that you ever dared operating a computer without the most basic
knowledge), then you might get a clue where to place reasonable assumptions.
A compromised system, by definition, remains compromised until it returns
into a well-defined state. Changing the state based on assumptions about the
current state can't achieve that. But well, that's just trivial math...