Prev: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windowswhen using AV protection?
Next: Avira version 10
From: David W. Hodgins on 24 Mar 2010 09:55
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:15:07 -0400, RayLopez99 <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> only way a properly configured Windows machine can ever be infected by
> viruses or malware, namely, a zero-day attack?

Unfortunately, zero-day attacks can be more like zero week/month
attacks.

Most of the systems I've had to clean in the last few months have
had variations of the 2010-antivirus trojan, installed using
drive by downloads due to problems with Internet Explorer.
That's why the German government advised people to stop using it.
http://mashable.com/2010/01/15/german-government-stop-using-internet-explorer/

While that particular problem has since been patched, given the
history of IE, I'm sure it won't be the last.

At least it enabled me to convince those people to only use admin
accounts, when they want to install programs, and/or updates, and
to stop using IE.

The only problem now is getting them to remember to login to the
admin account, at least once a week, to check for, and install
third party updates.

These were on systems using up-to-date av/m$ software. So the
problem does still exist, but is mostly rootkits and trojans,
rather then true viruses.

Part of the problem with m$ software, in general, is brain dead
decisions, that compromise security, to supposedly make the
system easier to use. Thinks like having known software
extensions, like .exe hidden by default. I don't see how that
makes it easier to use, but sure do see how it makes it less
secure. Making the admin account, the default for new systems
is just asking for newbie users, to get into trouble.

Another case I saw last fall, the user had purchased a system
with norton antivirus installed, set to auto-update. When the
user obtained a cable connection, they instructed her to install
there freely download mcafee av. Somehow she managed to get it
partially installed, with the result that neither was working.
That one had been turned into a spambot, with multiple back door
trojans, and root kits, which required full format and reinstall,
to clear up. She only had two online accounts, both used for
email, which were compromised. Luckily she wasn't using online
banking.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: David W. Hodgins on 24 Mar 2010 12:03
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:45:41 -0400, RayLopez99 <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, noted. Stories about improperly installed AV programs and zero-
> day attacks that are really the fault of the user (since the patch is
> available) are noted.
> Thanks, and that proves my point.

You missed the point. The patches were not available when the
systems became infected by drive by downloads (i.e. simply
visiting a normally good web site, that had been hacked),
where the IE exploit allowed the malware to be installed
without anything requiring the user to approve the install,
or even make them aware it was being installed.

If you are going to ignore all reports of vulnerabilities in
windows being exploited, why did you bother to post the question
in the first place?

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: David W. Hodgins on 24 Mar 2010 18:00
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:40:49 -0400, RayLopez99 <raylopez88(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?

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.

I would never use an m$ system for online banking, or anything
where I really care about the safety of my data.

Don't bother responding.

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: David W. Hodgins on 26 Mar 2010 18:21
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:10:42 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hohd1r$ndr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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

What av scanner for linux are you thinking about?

As far as I know, the only av scanners that run under linux, are
there only to detect windows viruses. This is only useful if you
are using the linux system as a file/email server for a windows
client.

Linux does have intrusion detection systems, and rootkit scanners.
It does not have any antivirus scanners looking for linux viruses.

If you are not using the linux system as a server for windows
clients, there is no point in running an antivirus program on it.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windowswhen using AV protection?
Next: Avira version 10