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: Lusotec on 26 Mar 2010 07:38 RayLopez99 wrote: > ToolPackinMama wrote: >> I could pick any AV protected Windows PC at random and probably find >> malware active on it. The oddity is finding one that isn't infected by >> something. > > Nope. Not true. "could" sounds like metaphysics. something not > detected by AV sw does not exist. HA HA HA. All *new* malware is not detected by AV programs. Even the stats you posted show tha tthe best AV finds only 70% of malware. > I concede Linux is more secure "in theory", but "de facto" *with the > proper AV s/w in place*, Windows is just as secure *for those people > that are not clueless (i.e., not deliberately installing malware by > mistake or otherwise)*. History of malware proves you totally *wrong*. Windows has a history full of malware that requires absolutely no user intervention. Windows *is* far more insecure than GNU/Linux in theory, in fact, in reality, in history, in everywhere except your head. > Hence my second thread, about comparing apples with apples. Actually > when you posed the question in your prior post I thought we were in > that newer thread. If you want to start a second thread the do so. Regards.
From: James Egan on 26 Mar 2010 09:34 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:48:42 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >While chip creep may only apply to socketed chips, I've seen chips, >actually the pins, come unsoldered by hot/cold cycles. We had a real >issue with that in the military in at one point. From the keyboard of the world's leading googler who's been there and done that before everyone else. lol
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 18:10 "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hohd1r$ndr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > FromTheRafters wrote: > >> You need AV to guard against the off chance that you encounter a >> virus. > > In Windows, yes, AV is absolutely necessary. Some people seem to be > asserting that it is not necessary with Linux. Is that true? It is needed in Linux to the same extent that it *should* be needed in Windows. That is to say it would be needed to protect against the slight chance that a *virus* could invade. If you discount exploit based malware, most other malware could be evaded with policy. It is possible for viruses to invade without either exploited software vulnerabilities or lapse in strict adherence to policy.
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 18:26 "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hohpo8$gu1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org.. [...] > ...She never actually uses her computer. Ahhh, the epitome of safe computing practices. ....but for security, it should be de-energized, encased in concrete, and buried deep. :o)
From: FromTheRafters on 26 Mar 2010 18:50
"RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ee8d20b6-4ef5-4df9-995b-6753c88a81cf(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [...] But the bottom line is that AV vendors have an incentive to hype up lack of security, and i've not seen it done, ergo,there's no problem to hype. *** Yes, but the existance of today's AV was born from the real need to be able to detect *viruses*. The fact that it has become perverted into what we see today does not negate that actual need (in *any* general purpose computer running any OS). Yes, they expanded their role to guard against threats that they should never have gotten the opportunity to scan, they should have been excluded from the local environment by policy. Users liked to use these scanners so that they could ignore policy (my AV program will save me, that's what it's for). Enforcing policy through software led to the concept of privilege escalation to circumvent policy - and worms usually attack software vulnerabilities that result in circumventing policy enforcement. Generally, (true) worms make holes in the boundaries with which we try to enforce policy. *** |