Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: AVG with Google Chrome
Next: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem inWindows when using AV protection?
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 05:58 On Mar 23, 10:49 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Did you know that Peter is a Windows user? its true. He's a closed > source Windows programmer. In other words he is responsible for a lot of > the "brain dead" applications that run on Windows. Amazing isn't it? So > is his lickspittle "mini me" Chris Ahlstrom. LOL. But Hadron you assume Peter's code is actually being used. More likely he is part of a team and as a junior programmer his work is redone (and done right) by a senior programmer. The senior programmer would have fired Peter by now, but doesn't want to rock the boat and besides, it gives the senior guy something to do: debugging Peter's code. I've seen this arrangement in practice. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 06:01 On Mar 23, 11:04 pm, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > The question was about the subset of all Windows computers that are > "protected" by commercial AV, not the entire set of Windows computers > estimated (by you?) to be infested. I can guess that greater than that > 30% of all Windows computers are completely unprotected (after their > bundled AV runs out). Thanks. I just realized that by including two newsgroups in addition to comp.os.linux.advocacy, namely alt.comp.anti-virus, alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, you get smarter answers. Perhaps it's right what people first told me about COLA: it's just a place for flaming, not serious advocacy. Shame really, as I do think Linux does a few things better than Window (the virtual directory scheme of Unix comes to mind). RL
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 06:10 On Mar 23, 11:13 pm, BluesBoy <guitar4je...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But so far nobody has proved that viruses are a serious problem in > > Windows. > > > RL > > The serious problem I see in regard to viruses in Windows is USERS! 'nuff > said! Those same LAZY users would not enjoy Linux one bit. But, like I > said, it pays the rent! > > BB Well said. You nailed the reason why Windows pays the rent, enjoys 90% + market share, and is not secure: the dumb lazy users of Windows are responsible. By contrast in Linux land it's secure--what respectable virus writer wants to write a Linux virus, with the mere 1% market share Linux 'enjoys'?--but until perhaps recently you had to "load" and "unload" your external drives, like floppy drives, using commands. I'm sure with "KDE" or "Knome", their GUI, it's now changed, but probably not by much. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 06:15 On Mar 23, 11:16 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... > > > 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... > > Detecting zoo viruses will skew results. The ability to detect them adds > no protection at all, since you won't be exposed to them. There is much > discussion about this in the AV community. I hold with those that would > ban zoo viruses from "test sets" except for showing that the technology > is there to detect them if they do ever make the ITW list. > > Keep the technology that allows the detection of difficult viruses, even > if no viruses of that type are ITW, but exclude them from comparative > tests because to have no real world impact. Excellent point. Shows me you know your stuff. If you care to share whether you've ever seen basically the only way a properly protected Windows system will ever be infected, save user negligence (installing a virus), that is, a zero-day attack, feel free to share. So, let me rephrase the question as it's becoming clearer by the post what the real issue is: aside from historical stories back in the days of the SneakerNet, aside from sorority sisters who don't practice Safe Hex and don't use AV programs, aside from negligent or stupid users who accidentally or otherwise install viruses or malware, has anybody seen the one and only way a properly configured Windows machine can ever be infected by viruses or malware, namely, a zero-day attack? RL
From: RayLopez99 on 24 Mar 2010 06:20
On Mar 23, 11:27 pm, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > > Yes. I had to clean up a Windows laptop last year despite things > being kept up to date and AV installed. The AV was bloody hopeless at > setecting it despite being kept up to date. Urban Legend? I think you are sincere, but if it's not too much of a bother if you can recall the name of the virus (if it had a name) that would be great, unless giving away this name would identify the customer/client/victim of the malware. In other words, how could the malware infect the laptop--unless it was a zero-day attack or the user installed it by mistake? In short, as I code, I know that computers are very predictable. If your AV program is configured to catch virus "X" then it will catch it--and you will not be infected. As for the 30-70% of malware that are not caught (see the PDF in this thread), this could be "zoo" type malware that is included in the figure but in practice is never seen 'in the wild'. RL |