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 25 Mar 2010 22:04 On Mar 25, 10:14 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No browser is completely immune due to 3rd party software that the > developers have no real control over, but IE it seemed to me, almost went > out of it's way to be a big target. > Agreed. It's also very slow at everything...even emptying out your cookies bin and temp files takes forever....a sign of bugs in it. Still, I have it as my 'default' browser (which I override) only because I think Windows likes it better when IE is the default (I'm just guessing, and I'm sure the EU where I'm posting from and MSFT itself disagree). RL
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 22:08 On Mar 25, 10:15 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > chrisv <chr...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.03.25.17.58.57.422081 > > > *plonk* > > Damn, I've been plonked by a dimwit usenetter. I'm so.. ashamed or > something. > Pay no need to him DC. chrisv a net nanny and never shares anything of value save his personal details. This fool claims he was cyberstalked by a criminal who made death threats against his family and daughter--now that's bad, but get this: he then posts the entire cyber conversation (a series of what looked like emails) ONLINE?! How dumb is that? If the criminal was serious, these emails should be kept secret so that clues will be preserved. Oh well, chrisv is a few brickloads shy in the smarts department. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 22:10 On Mar 25, 11:09 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote innews:8d9a4f53-14ac-40a3-9cb4-105fb0e08a00(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com: > > Here's an example of how code could get on a normal user (who is logged in > with administrator rights) without the user actually being responsible for > it. > > http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2010/mfsa2010-08.html > > Btw, All firefox users should probably go ahead and update if you haven't > already. > Very interesting, thanks. I think buffer overruns is the root of all evil--I guess when this happens you can do the equivalent of SQL injection attacks and JavaScript will run wild...or something. RL Security researcher Evgeny Legerov of Intevydis reported that the WOFF decoder contains an integer overflow in a font decompression routine. This flaw could result in too small a memory buffer being allocated to store a downloadable font. An attacker could use this vulnerability to crash a victim's browser and execute arbitrary code on his/her system.
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 22:23 On Mar 26, 12:13 am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > > commercial antivirus protection? > > In just 2 days, this topic has generated over 200 articles. Most of > whom have had very unpleasant things to say about Microsoft. > > You tried valiantly to defend Microsoft, numerous times. But people > felt strongly enough about this issue to respond back several times. > Some just gave up and want back to personal attacks (shame on you Mr > Kohlmann). But that turned into more personal attacks (shame on you > One Shot, One Kill). Yes, yes, those clowns are just noise. But you Rex, you are a different animal all together. > > You like to claim that 99% of the people who use computers choose > Windows. In reality, most people don't really have much of a choice. > Windows comes on the computer, whether they like it or not, they can't > get service or support if they take it off completely, and Retailers > don't ever put Linux machine on display in the retail stores, in a way > that users can actually take a properly configured Linux machine for a > "Test Drive". Right. Marketing it's called. Shelf space. > > Even more remarkable is that - at minimum - tens of millions of users > (assuming 1% of 1 billion) are willing to install Linux themselves. Right. Hobbyists. > > Most people really identify with he Mac commercial, enough that > roughly 28 million people decide they would rather spend 3-5 times > more money for a Mac running OS/X than a machine that has only been > configured to run Windows. Yes, correct again. You're on a roll Rex. > > Best Buy is now selling separate support program and replacement > program. The support program is for those who stick with Windows, and > plan to stay with it. The replacement program is only if you drop > your computer or for some other reason it needs to be replaced due to > a hardware problem. > > This may be because so many people were refusing to pay for a service/ > replacement program that was nullified if they installed Linux. Could be. > > Furthermore, more and more people are opting not to buy new versions > of Microsoft Office. Will Office 97 or Office 2000 run on Windows 7? > Maybe they are just moving Office 2003 over. Still, there isn't > really an overwhelming case to be made for spending even $169 to > upgrade to Office 2007. Microsoft has tried to offset this by > offering free trial-versions that automatically charge your credit > card when you forget to tell them you don't want it. Could be. > > Even that hasn't worked very well, so now they are offering you a free > download of Office 2010, whenever it becomes available - if you by > Office 2007 now. Furthermore, the retailers are taking as much as $40 > off if you buy it in the store. Right. Hard times. Recession. > > Of course, if you don't buy the 3 year replacement plan, and the 3 > year service plan, for a total price of around $500, then the store > actually loses money on the sale. So does the manufacturer. In fact, > the only company that makes any money on the sale of a Laptop or > desktop system - is Microsoft. Nope. Your one and only big mistake in this thread, and it's crucial. They will make money at any price a little over zero. The marginal cost of software is close to $1. Economics 101. Mentioned in the MSFT-USA antitrust trial. Good night and good fight Rex! RL
From: FromTheRafters on 25 Mar 2010 23:50
"ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hoequg$644$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "RayLopez99"<raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:2a795f5f-8a21-42ed-9a37-5458920a9af0(a)k13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> Same with computer viruses. In our modern era John, who is getting >> infected? Nobody SAVE zero-day attack victims. > > Well, huge numbers of PCs are infected. In my experience it's more > common for a PC to be infected than not. I'll go along with that assessment. > Most of them have anti-virus installed and supposedly working at the > time they become infected. I can believe that too. > Does anybody here believe that what I have just said isn't true? Not me. > Blah blah blah in an ideal world all PCs are properly protected and > updated and used responsibly blah blah blah. But that is not the > world I live in. The point I was trying to make was that even *if* that perfect world could exist, AV would *still* be needed because it is the *virus* that is the real problem. In that world, the chances of ever encountering a virus would be very very slim, but when encountered...it could be very very bad. In the real world, malware is intent upon using your computer time to do their bidding on your dime. In the perfect world, you could still have viruses just waiting to do something really really bad, or data diddling in small chunks that you don't notice (a la ripper) and ruining your backup strategy. You need AV to guard against the off chance that you encounter a virus. AV then tried to become more. The more it became was "more needed" - it became a crutch and an enabler of the bad computing practices that resulted in the malware cesspool we all swim in today. I can't argue against those whos view is that the crutch is not needed (I agree wholehartedly) - but most people fail to see the baby in the bathwater. |