Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: SteveH on 24 Mar 2010 17:23 Leythos wrote: > > You mean like windows updates between 3AM and 4AM? > Hell would freeze over before I allowed MS to install updates on my PC in my absence. As many here surely know, not /all/ MS updates are safe or even neecessary for all Windows PC's. It can doenload them in the night (if I leave my PC on), but it will install them when I've seen what it wants to install. -- SteveH
From: FromTheRafters on 24 Mar 2010 17:31 "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hodt58$h2h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 3/24/2010 2:59 PM, Leythos wrote: > >> Having designed hardware for decades and been responsible for failure >> analysis, I can assure you that turning off computers does contribute >> to >> their failure when you power them back on again. >> > > Never mind the damage infected computers do while they are pointlessly > left running. > > Oh, and never mind the energy savings, either. > > I would never base a decision like that on whether it speeds up the > wearing-out process. There are larger questions to consider. > > Maybe it wears out the switch on my lamp to turn it on and off, but do > any of you think we should therefore leave all lamps burning night and > day? Nobody would assert that we should, for fear of seeming foolish, > because to everybody THAT is obviously preposterous. Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when they are first energized. It's kinda like those compact florescent bulbs, they consume most of their power when starting, then are very efficient thereafter. Putting one in your refrigerator would likely *increase* your power usage rather than the opposite. There is a point of diminishing returns when the duty cycle is dialed back too far. As for wear and tear, much engineering has been done to mitigate any increases in failure rate due to the thermal effects of duty cycles in electrical/electronic equipment. Still..mitigation is only a step in the right direction, not a cure.
From: SteveH on 24 Mar 2010 17:32 RayLopez99 wrote: > > Troll or not, my points stand. Your 'point' is on your head. Quit > reading the signature line and start reading the content of the post. > > RL Troll or Stupid, which is it? -- SteveH
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 17:40 On Mar 24, 6:03 pm, "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodg...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:45:41 -0400, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, noted. Stories about improperly installed AV programs and zero- > > day attacks that are really the fault of the user (since the patch is > > available) are noted. > > Thanks, and that proves my point. > > You missed the point. No you missed the point actually, but it's a fine distinction so no shame. Let me explain. I looked into this story, and it's not what this discussion is about. What you mention (and thanks for finding this story BTW) is a flaw in Internet Explorer, that allowed a hacker to gain control of your PC via ActiveX. A week after January 15, 2010, when this story broke, Microsoft issued a patch to correct this flaw. ("Microsoft patches "Google hack" flaw in Internet Explorer 20 Jan 2010 ... Microsoft has issued an out-of-band security patch to address a remote code ... Microsoft patches "Google hack" flaw in Internet Explorer ...") So this was essentially a security flaw that affected various Chinese dissidents who were using IE to post messages via Google. Unfortunately for them, they paid with their freedom and maybe their lives (who knows? news is censored from China). Tragic, but again this is akin to a "zero day" attack. In fact, it's even more rare than a "zero day" attack since it probably takes more skill to exploit such a feature in IE (IMO) than merely writing a new virus. This is one reason Google decided to get out of China (and good for them) because they concluded the Chinese government must be devoting resources to track down dissidents who use Google. But again, it's got nothing to do with this thread except reinforce that yes, viruses can be created to harm you, but, once you install the antidote to them (the update/ the patch, the service pack, etc, and again, it's up to you to get the patch installed) you are safe. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 17:49
On Mar 24, 11:32 pm, "SteveH" <steve.houghREM...(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > RayLopez99 wrote: > > > Troll or not, my points stand. Your 'point' is on your head. Quit > > reading the signature line and start reading the content of the post. > > > RL > > Troll or Stupid, which is it? > > -- > SteveH Neither. Begging for attention SteveH? What don't you understand about computers that's so difficult? Let me summarize this thread for you, since you don't like nuances, I'll keep it simple: Install your MSFT patches, keep your AV / malware shields up, get a firewall, and then you are safe from everything except esoteric hacks of IE from professional Chinese government computer scientists, or from zero-day attacks, which, as various knowledgeable posters have stated in this thread, are not that common anyway (by they time they become common, a patch is issued by Kaspersky and others). A compound sentence but I trust you're smart enough to digest that? Maybe my trust is misplaced? Yes a worm in 2003 disrupted the net for a day--big deal. If it was Linux rather than Windows probably the same thing would have happened. Bottom line: Linux losers, quit spreading FUD about Windows and security. There is no security problem with Windows, properly maintained, as I defined it. RL |