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 18:22 On Mar 25, 12:00 am, "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodg...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:49 -0400, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Yes that particular problem has now been patched. How many of the > systems that got infected prior to the patch have not yet been > cleaned? You're asking how many people get infected by zero-day attacks in this day and age? Probably a very small number, I would imagine less than 1%. I've been computing for over 20 years and never had a virus attack except back in the days of the sneaker net (and I caught it). Modern times--zero, with a few false positives. > > Once the system gets infected, it cannot be trusted, until a full > day is wasted wiping the system, reinstalling, downloading updates, > rebooting about a dozen times to install the updates, etc. > > Your refusal to accept the clear fact that m$ never has been, and > never will be secure, makes it clear you are nothing but a troll. B.S.! You lost the debate and now you're trying ad homenium attacks. > > I would never use an m$ system for online banking, or anything > where I really care about the safety of my data. I do, and I'm worth millions. > > Don't bother responding. Why? Afraid you might lose the argument? I agree Linux might be inherently safer (in theory) than Windows, but properly maintained Windows is incredibly safe. Another way of putting it: Linux without AV/firewall protection is probably (I guess) LESS safe than Windows *with* AV/firewall protection. A topic for another thread perhaps. RL
From: Leythos on 24 Mar 2010 18:41 In article <hodseq$c4e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... > > On 3/24/2010 7:48 AM, Leythos wrote: > > > If you've worked with Electronics for any length of time, and with > > devices that have bearings, you would know, without guessing, that > > turning off a device increases chances of a problem when you try and use > > it again. There are also times when a device fails due to normal > > wear/tear/age.... > > > > You mean if I actually use my tires for stop and go traffic that they > may wear out sooner than if I hypothetically drove and drove and never > stopped? Hmm! That's interesting! > > But wouldn't I use more gas if I never stopped? Gotta admit there is > something to that. In my case, the cost of running the workstations for 16 hours a day and shutting them off, vs running them 16 hours a day and then letting the monitor sleep, the Hard-Drives sleep after 1 hour of non-use, the CPU throttle down, etc... is negligible. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 24 Mar 2010 18:42 In article <hodt58$h2h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... > I would never base a decision like that on whether it speeds up the > wearing-out process. There are larger questions to consider. > You're distracted - the comments I made addressed a part of the issue of turning hardware on/off, nothing about Saving Power. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 24 Mar 2010 18:46 In article <bpvqn.581266$5n1.336158(a)newsfe01.ams2>, steve.houghREMOVE(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk says... > > 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. That's fine for you, but, since we mostly do BUSINESS systems, those updates have caused exactly 2 problems impacting about 30 out of thousands of machines we monitor and support. While a residential user might, if they are somewhat technical in nature, be able to manually update, for MOST people, they don't have a clue and the benefits far outweigh the impact of NOT updating automatically. I have two workstations that are set for automatic updates, here in my office, they have been running for 3 years without a failure and without needing to be rebuilt - XP machines on a domain. My mother inlaw has a Dell Dim 2400, bought when the 2400 was new (that was a LONG TIME AGO) and it's set for automatic updates also - never had a problem. Almost all of the automatic updates have to do with users having compromised system or crappy drivers for crappy hardware. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: FromTheRafters on 24 Mar 2010 20:10
"RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:61138b64-af7c-4931-bc7d-a882de0dee50(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Mar 23, 11:36 pm, "FromTheRafters" <erra...(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: > "RayLopez99" <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c6895e3d-0dc9-4a01-92c8-4866bf57485c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > But so far nobody has proved that viruses are a serious problem in > Windows. > > *** > Viruses are rare (unless you are in the "all worms are viruses" camp). > *Malware* is a serious problem in Windows. > *** 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. More clueless users are starting to infiltrate the Linux userbase just because of the perceived need to deal with malware in Windows but not in Linux. *** 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. Bots are very dangerous applications, and it doesn't really matter what methods get used to install them. Their number alone makes them readily available to use the next wormable exploit as a drill bit to bore into new systems. Conficker was one such worm IIRC, and the botnet it installed on the internet could make use of the next wormable exploit as well. *** (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. *** 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. *** |