Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: RayLopez99 on 23 Mar 2010 16:18 On Mar 23, 9:46 pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > > commercial antivirus protection? > > Bagel, Sky, and several others have variants that can disable actual > virus checking and/or quarantine measures without letting the user > know they have been disabled. Fixing things that have been corrupted > this way can be very ugly. > > I've had at least a dozen viruses over the last 10 years that have > been so difficult to remove or did such damage that I eventually had > to re-image the hard drive. For your machine? I doubt it. Probably for others. And who knows what stupid thing they did to install those viruses. > These are the ones that got past kasparskyhttp://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204792067 > > http://www.virusbtn.com/index Yeah, nice links, thanks, but they prove my point: the #1 on the list Net-Worm.Win32.Kido.ih has infected 58200 machines, which sounds like a lot, until you realize there are nearly 1 billion Windows machines out there. Let's make it easy and say there are 582000000 Windows machines (a low number). So one out of 10000 Windows machines are infected by this #1 virus. Second place was half this number, so one out of 20000 Windows machines. And these are high estimates--the actual number is probably half that. I'm sure a lot of people are dumb out there. > > Unfortunately, the biggest trojans - IE and Outlook, cannot be > disabled, and cannot be blocked. OK now I see your dishonest tactics. You define IE and Outlook as "viruses", hence the claim that the majority of Windows PCs are "infected". Dishonesty noted. > > Since you like this source, here's another good report from them. > > http://www.av-comparatives.org/component/poll/17-reinstalled > > How often have you reinstalled (or rollback of image) windows due an > infection in the last 12 months? > > never 2258 65.8% > 1 time 479 13.9% > 2 times 227 6.6% > more than 4 times 194 5.6% > 3 times 114 3.3% > living with known infection 86 2.5% > 4 times 76 2.2% This is believable. I count myself as "two times" but both times were not for viruses, but because a certain program or two I installed would not uninstall itself properly. This is not a virus, as I define it. Thanks for keeping this thread short Rex. I lerned a lot actually. Like I say, Windows is not bad at all vis-a-vis viruses. RL
From: Buffalo on 23 Mar 2010 16:20 Peter K�hlmann wrote: > Buffalo wrote: > It wasn't a conclusion from what was written in this thread >>> So the estimate that around 30% of all windows computers are infected > is "rare problems" >> Are you a politician?? >> Same kind of logic they use. >> Buffalo > > Are you a Mac user? Those tend to be extremely stupid. > Or are you (even worse) a windows user? Another illogical comment . Must be a Republican !! Are you Rush L. in disguise?? Of course it was. If you can't see that, you have a problem. Quote below from the OP first post. "It compares 16 commercial programs, and finds Microsoft at #2, catching 60% of all viruses (Avanti is #1 at 70%). And we're taking about all viruses, some of which as so obscure I'm sure you'll never seen one in the wild..." So I guess the "Avanti is #1 at 70%" was not the premise of the reply? C'mon! Perhaps the 30 % was taken from that comment, since I did not see 70 or 30% mentioned elseware. BTW, what is Avanti ? :) Damn!! Buffalo
From: Buffalo on 23 Mar 2010 16:25 RayLopez99 wrote: > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > commercial antivirus protection? > > One of the claims of the Linux crowd is that such problems are > legion. But talking so some of the people at alt.comp.anti-virus I > get the impression such problems are rare. > > Who is more right? > > BTW, check out this PDF on AV software: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report22.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEDInyvV2WgWDzeAWeAjzJKLymkDA > > It compares 16 commercial programs, and finds Microsoft at #2, > catching 60% of all viruses (Avanti is #1 at 70%). And we're taking > about all viruses, some of which as so obscure I'm sure you'll never > seen one in the wild... > > RL Anti-virus program definitions are updated 'after' new viruse are found. Practicing 'Safe Hex' is very important also, rather than just depending solely on an Anti-virus program to protect you. If, and I do mean if, Linux ever gets really popular, there will be many exploits on it also. Buffalo
From: RayLopez99 on 23 Mar 2010 16:32 On Mar 23, 10:22 pm, Leythos <spam999f...(a)rrohio.com> wrote: > > Sorry, you're wrong - seen it many times, many. One of the worst I saw > was a malware spread via Yahoo Instant Messenger that contained a SMTP > engine. This happened at a sorority, in about 30 minutes 45 computers > were compromised as it spread to each of their lists.... OK, fine. The "one of the worse" examples was spread through Yahoo IM. I don't use that program. Nor do most people who do serious work. So yes, some teens who use IM and who may or may not practice Safe Hex (which is simply using an AV program in Windows), got infected. Shame, but it proves nothing. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 23 Mar 2010 16:38
On Mar 23, 10:24 pm, Leythos <spam999f...(a)rrohio.com> wrote: > What about all of the compromised computers, Windows computer, that had > Office Business Contact Manager installed and were not secured - BCM > includes SQL server and when the PC is connected directly to the > internet it can easily be compromised without triggering an AV event. Well that does sound problematic. Trouble is, a brief Google search found nothing... If you can find a cite, it might make your point, but otherwise I'm afraid I have to classify this as Urban Legend. Anybody else? RL |