Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: FromTheRafters on 23 Mar 2010 21:06 "tom" <2@~.com> wrote in message news:eHaqn.107985$Ye4.10699(a)newsfe11.iad... > Yes, while using XP. I clicked on a site from a cigar NG that sold > torch lighters. Got shot to some chinese site and my "free" CA AV > program lit up like a xmas tree. It warned me of the infection and > supposedly deleted it. But it wasn't gone. It eventually took over the > whole machine and ended up doing a reformat to regain control. > Needless to say that was the end of my using CA products...whatever > the price. So, you blamed your AV program for what probably resulted from a browser, script, or pdf exploit. Your AV program probably detected only one part of the total amount of malware instantiated in the attack. Don't be fooled into believing the better AVs will be that much better.
From: Char Jackson on 23 Mar 2010 22:02 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:57:13 -0400, ToolPackinMama <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >People I meet have many times asked me if they should shut their Windows >computers off at night, and I always say, "Yes, keep your PC off unless >you are using it." > >I figure if it's off, an infected computer can do less damage. I agree with the advice, although I don't follow it myself. To me, the primary reason for turning a system off is to save electricity.
From: David H. Lipman on 23 Mar 2010 22:14 From: "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> | On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:57:13 -0400, ToolPackinMama | <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>People I meet have many times asked me if they should shut their Windows >>computers off at night, and I always say, "Yes, keep your PC off unless >>you are using it." >>I figure if it's off, an infected computer can do less damage. | I agree with the advice, although I don't follow it myself. To me, the | primary reason for turning a system off is to save electricity. Actualy the quiescent temperature is better since you dont have hard drive warming exapnsion and drive cooling contraction cycles adding tom the wear and tear factor and aging of a hard disk. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Char Jackson on 23 Mar 2010 22:38 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:14:24 -0400, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: >From: "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> > >| On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:57:13 -0400, ToolPackinMama >| <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>>People I meet have many times asked me if they should shut their Windows >>>computers off at night, and I always say, "Yes, keep your PC off unless >>>you are using it." > >>>I figure if it's off, an infected computer can do less damage. > >| I agree with the advice, although I don't follow it myself. To me, the >| primary reason for turning a system off is to save electricity. > > >Actualy the quiescent temperature is better since you dont have hard drive warming >exapnsion and drive cooling contraction cycles adding tom the wear and tear factor and >aging of a hard disk. Probably true, but I have no evidence, even anecdotal evidence, to indicate that it makes an appreciable difference in equipment life. :)
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 05:52
On Mar 23, 10:43 pm, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > "RayLopez99" <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8d9a4f53-14ac-40a3-9cb4-105fb0e08a00(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > > commercial antivirus protection? > > Just say "malware" when you want to be all inclusive about malicious > software. Viruses are in only a smallish subcategory of malware. The > terms "rootkit", "adware" and "spyware" are really neutral (some are > malware, some are not). OK, thanks will do that. > > That being said, even AV aimed at "prevention" has its achilles' heel - > and when prevention fails an attack against the AV can be launched, > which allows *everything* to circumvent it. I see. Interesting theory. > > > 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. > > The Linux crowd is getting more and more like the Windows crowd every > day. :o) > > > Who is more right? > > It depends on whom you ask. :oD Yes, true. > > The bottom line is that antivirus and antimalware programs only detect > *some* of what they try to detect. The best approach is to limit the > amount of malware that you expose those programs to. Adhering to best > practices may result in avoiding 95% (just a guess) of malware out > there. The rest will be worms (i.e. exploit based autoworms) and viruses > (downloaded from *reputable* sources). OK, that 5% interests me. But as a scientist I believe in verification. Anybody get infected by that 5%, and by what, did it have a name? The only thing I can think of is: (1) unnamed viruses not get discovered by Kaspersky or whoever, and, (2) zero-day attacks by new viruses (or variants of old) that Kaspersky sends out the patch but a day late. RL |