Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 25 Mar 2010 00:21 "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:04f96100-6887-404e-a3d9-58492f2ad7dd(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... Actually, I think that was 58200 variants on 1 machine. *** Not likely, worms (it did say worm) often use signals (a mutex) to ensure only one copy is running on the machine. The count is likely the number of computers thought to be hosting (or having hosted) the worm (I didn't look). ***
From: Char Jackson on 25 Mar 2010 00:29 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:08:44 GMT, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in >news:1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >>>In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... >>>> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when >not >>>> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will >>>> extend the life of the components. >>>> >>> >>>If you consider the following: >>> >>>Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>>Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>>Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load >>>Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases >>> >>>If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does >it >>>save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day? >>> >>>Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power >>>saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the >>>computer completely off? >> >> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off >> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is >> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will >> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, >> causing the result to vary. > >So.. thats a no then? Not very difficult to see how much wattage your >system is actually using in a low power state... Bad to just take a guess >and try to pass that off as knowing... ? Nobody asked me about *my* PC. I was providing a generic example. Plug in your own numbers to get a result that's meaningful to you. I can't do it from here.
From: Lil' Abner on 25 Mar 2010 00:39 Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:Xns9D45F04507BD5HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247: > "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in > news:hoel86$c6q$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > >> "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On 3/24/2010 5:31 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >>> >>>> Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when >>>> they are >>>> first energized. >>> >>> More... for the whole rest of their lives? Or more for the rest of >>> the day? Or more... what do you mean by "more"? >> >> Greater than less ( more > less ). With a motor, it takes more ( > >> less) power until the motor spins up to generate the opposing "back >> voltage" that a spinning motor generates. Running for some period of >> time is equal to this power consumption. De-energizing for less than >> that period of time will not save you any power. As for the bulbs, > there >> is that factor plus the efficiency and the life expectancy of the >> bulb is reduced with multiple starts (though I don't know exactly >> why). > > If it's a filament based bulb, it's due to the thermals of the wire > heating and rapidly cooling. It's why on the incandescent house lights > in the states, if you hit the light switch rapidly for a little while > you might burn a bulb out. hehehe.. Filament will only take so much. I use a dimmer to turn my lights on and off slowly. I've been running dimmers ever since I starting lighting. I've never lost a bulb yet. I've never had a virus since I started computing in 1983 either. :-) -- --- Everybody has a right to my opinion. ---
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 05:18 On Mar 25, 2:10 am, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > > "RayLopez99" <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > Seems you know what you are talking about, unlike the vast majority in > COLA (linux group). > > *** > They (mostly) haven't had to deal with it - and so are lulled into > believing the reason is in the way the OS works differently than > Windows. Very interesting. I will start a new thread and cross post here...on this topic. I'd like to see what others say but my intuition says your thesis is correct. Linux may have a smaller "surface area" than Windows for malware vectors to latch onto, but at the end of the day it's not immune--in fact, I was surprised to learn recently there were two security patches to the Linux kernel in the last six months. For a while I believed the hype that somehow Linux is immune from malware. > > What do you see as "malware" in Windows that's a serious problem? > > *** > Aside from the obvious "clueless user" syndrome - there are worms being > used as botnet distribution mechanisms. The worms go away (not really, > but mostly) and the bots do their thing until some new exploit > surfaces - then the command and control (or update mechanism) attaches > the new exploit code to copies of the bot and distrubutes again in > wormlike fashion. Interesting. And if the worm does not leave behind copies of itself it will not be detected by a user running a weekly or biweekly full scan?! Evil! > > (I'm not arguing, just asking since I'm curious). Stuff like toolbars > that are always being asked to be installed in your browser, that > would require user input to be installed? > > *** > My personal view is that a good deal of what is considered "malicious" > software is really no more than an annoyance. I must agree that they are > malicious mostly because they are stealing computing power in order to > be that annoyance. Sounds believable. The worse (most successful) animal viruses are the ones that don't kill their host--they are just an annoyance, so the host does not try to kill them; think dog or cat with fleas. > *** > > Or stuff automatically installed? Or something else? > > *** > Back to viruses, you can't just pigeonhole items like that. A virus that > lays low waiting for a certain date to activate it's destructive payload > is every bit as dangerous as an application that is installed on the > system by a trojan waiting for the same trigger event. Installation is > (mainly) for non-viral (including worms as non-viral here) malware that > needs to be hosted by the system rather than by a program or program > file on the system. The dangerous thing is the ingress vector - as in > "How did this thing get here and get executed?". Clueless users are a > big hole (Linux not immune). Exploits of software vulnerabilities is > another (again, Linux not actually immune). The other case is where the > user does all the right things (plenty of clue), has the best exploit > based worm protection (perimeter filtering, intruder defense, timely > updates of snort signatures and all software), and yet gets malware > (probably a virus) from a known good trusted source (or repository) of > programs. > *** What are your views on JavaScript? Is it a source for malware to infect your computer? I was recently surprised (since I'm coding an ASP.NET web application right now) that microsoft.com home page did not have any JavaScript (when I looked at the HTML source code via my browser). I was surprised--I don't like JavaScript that much because it's server side and essentially is just eye candy for the user (but saves a round trip to the server, so it is useful for performance I guess)--but I was --unless I misread the source code, via View | Source --shocked that MSFT did not have any JavaScript on their home page. Maybe it's been turned off by so many browsers that it's passe? Or perhaps so many different versions of it out there? At one point I think MSFT had their own flavor of JavaScript that was not compatible with the others. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 05:28
On Mar 25, 2:22 am, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > "RayLopez99" <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2a795f5f-8a21-42ed-9a37-5458920a9af0(a)k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > Same with computer viruses. In our modern era John, who is getting > infected? Nobody SAVE zero-day attack victims. > > *** > There you hit the nail on the head. Most of today's malware relies on > exploiting that zero-day window of opportunity. Many don't even try to > evade detection. > *** > > So let's ask this question: have you or anybody you know ever been a > zero-day attack victim? Nope? Didn't think so. > > *** > Antimalware and antivirus using signature based methods must have > signatures. They get signatures when they get samples of malware, from > victims and intended victims, that they can analyze. If there were no > victims, the signature would not have been derived from analysis and > distributed to the scanners to protect us from it. The fact that you > don't know anyone afflicted is more a testament to the success of the > system than evidence that it is not needed. > *** Very interesting reply, but as a philosopher and scientist that you and I are, or could play one on the internet, you realize your statements are unprovable? And if it's unprovable Sir Karl Popper would argue it does not exist (scientific method). RL |