DHL Trojan email
in [Windows Viruses]
|
From: David Kaye on 26 Apr 2010 15:25 "Daniel" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >I just received an email from someone that said it was from >DHL but it contained a Trojan, why did Windows Security Essentials not pick >it up? What is a trojan? A trojan is software that pretends to be something else. For instance, Weather Bug pretends to give you the weather, but when, for instance, you enter "Miami" for the Miami weather, you begin getting pop-ups for hotels in Miami when your browser is open. What they're doing is selling you stuff under the guise of giving you a weather gadget. So, technically Weather Bug is a trojan. But most people wouldn't call it a trojan. They'd just call it annoying. The problem with trojans is one of social engineering. How do you qualify what a trojan is if the result is something you may want, even if it's not portrayed that way?
From: Geoff on 26 Apr 2010 19:42 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:25:47 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >"Daniel" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>I just received an email from someone that said it was from >>DHL but it contained a Trojan, why did Windows Security Essentials not pick >>it up? > >What is a trojan? A trojan is software that pretends to be something else. >For instance, Weather Bug pretends to give you the weather, but when, for >instance, you enter "Miami" for the Miami weather, you begin getting pop-ups >for hotels in Miami when your browser is open. What they're doing is selling >you stuff under the guise of giving you a weather gadget. So, technically >Weather Bug is a trojan. But most people wouldn't call it a trojan. They'd >just call it annoying. > >The problem with trojans is one of social engineering. How do you qualify >what a trojan is if the result is something you may want, even if it's not >portrayed that way? Another point is that all A-V scanners that depend on definition files are reactive in nature and always lag behind the threats. New threats must be suspected, forwarded, analyzed and confirmed before the new definitions can be propagated. Then you have embarrassing debacles like the recent McAfee definitions file that caused systems to go into endless reboot because someone didn't validate the def files properly. For all A-V systems of this nature you are going to have a window of vulnerability where a new threat (a zero-day threat) can exploit unprepared systems. This is why the argument still rages between the ease-of-use camp and the security-first camp. Windows CAN be properly secured but it takes some work and some skill to get it done. Then you have to deal with basic user accounts vs. running as administrator and all the configuration problems that go with installing and maintaining programs. Microsoft has decided to take an incremental approach and move users and developers into the security-first camp slowly by "evolving" Windows. I can't say I agree with this, sometimes it's better to just rip that Band-Aid off and get the pain over with quickly. I must say I prefer the way OS X / Linux does it. One is running in user mode by default. When it comes to installation of a new application you must give the root password to become SU, then the installation proceeds under that higher privilege. And it is very clear that you are entering a new level, one you should be conscious of since if you are suddenly asked for a password that you didn't deliberately initiate you had better not give it. It also keeps the kids out of the system if you don't give them the root password and you "administer" their accounts for them. I good friend of mine was constantly fixing his PC at home because he was too lazy to set up individual accounts for his daughters and wife on their XP system and they kept installing crapware.
From: John on 27 Apr 2010 13:53 Doesn't sound like a lazy guy if he's willing to spend hours/days cleaning up crapware. "Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:j78ct55lflpsflbcggroqk5uh64chi4i90(a)4ax.com... > I good friend of mine was constantly fixing his PC at home because he > was too lazy to set up individual accounts for his daughters and wife > on their XP system and they kept installing crapware.
From: David H. Lipman on 27 Apr 2010 16:30 From: "John" <a> | Doesn't sound like a lazy guy if he's willing to spend hours/days cleaning | up crapware. It does if he doesn't take the time to prevent it in the first place. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: "FromTheRafters" erratic on 27 Apr 2010 21:03
Not lazy really, just completely irresponsible. "John" <a> wrote in message news:esqwcKj5KHA.5464(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Doesn't sound like a lazy guy if he's willing to spend hours/days > cleaning up crapware. > > "Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:j78ct55lflpsflbcggroqk5uh64chi4i90(a)4ax.com... >> I good friend of mine was constantly fixing his PC at home because he >> was too lazy to set up individual accounts for his daughters and wife >> on their XP system and they kept installing crapware. > > |