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: TomB on 23 Mar 2010 16:39 ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.] On 2010-03-23, the following emerged from the hollow head of RayLopez99: > > Anybody else? So far nobody has showed there's a real threat from > viruses in Windows land, just a few isolated examples, and a few > replies are like mine: no viruses ever, or in years... Sure, little Ray. And that's exactly why millions of zombified Windows machines are sending millions of spam each day again. All because of a few isolated examples. Years ago I read that an idle, unprotected Windows 2000 machine would be owned within 10 minutes after putting it on the internet. So I installed W2K on a spare HDD and connected it to the internet without any protection. No NAT router, no firewall, no antivirus. Nothing. In less than *five* minutes CPU usage was 100 % and the machine was pushing network traffic at maximum upstream bandwidth. It became a zombie without even touching it. -- The bigger the waistband, the deeper the quicksand. ~ David St.-Hubbins
From: FromTheRafters on 23 Mar 2010 16:43 "RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8d9a4f53-14ac-40a3-9cb4-105fb0e08a00(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > commercial antivirus protection? Just say "malware" when you want to be all inclusive about malicious software. Viruses are in only a smallish subcategory of malware. The terms "rootkit", "adware" and "spyware" are really neutral (some are malware, some are not). That being said, even AV aimed at "prevention" has its achilles' heel - and when prevention fails an attack against the AV can be launched, which allows *everything* to circumvent it. > One of the claims of the Linux crowd is that such problems are > legion. But talking so some of the people at alt.comp.anti-virus I > get the impression such problems are rare. The Linux crowd is getting more and more like the Windows crowd every day. :o) > Who is more right? It depends on whom you ask. :oD The bottom line is that antivirus and antimalware programs only detect *some* of what they try to detect. The best approach is to limit the amount of malware that you expose those programs to. Adhering to best practices may result in avoiding 95% (just a guess) of malware out there. The rest will be worms (i.e. exploit based autoworms) and viruses (downloaded from *reputable* sources).
From: Lusotec on 23 Mar 2010 16:53 RayLopez99 wrote: > Rex Ballard wrote: >> Since you like this source, here's another good report from them. >> >> http://www.av-comparatives.org/component/poll/17-reinstalled >> >> How often have you reinstalled (or rollback of image) windows due an >> infection in the last 12 months? >> >> never 2258 65.8% >> 1 time 479 13.9% >> 2 times 227 6.6% >> more than 4 times 194 5.6% >> 3 times 114 3.3% >> living with known infection 86 2.5% >> 4 times 76 2.2% > > This is believable. 34% of respondents had to reinstall/reimage Windows in the past 12 mounths. > (...) > Thanks for keeping this thread short Rex. I lerned a lot actually. > Like I say, Windows is not bad at all vis-a-vis viruses. Those numbers can't be generalized, but one third had to reinstall/reimage at least once, and your classify it as "not bad at all"! Are you an idiot? (just joking!) Regards.
From: Hadron on 23 Mar 2010 16:49 "Buffalo" <Eric(a)nada.com.invalid> writes: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Buffalo wrote: >> It wasn't a conclusion from what was written in this thread > >>>> So the estimate that around 30% of all windows computers are infected >> is "rare problems" > >>> Are you a politician?? >>> Same kind of logic they use. >>> Buffalo >> >> Are you a Mac user? Those tend to be extremely stupid. >> Or are you (even worse) a windows user? > > Another illogical comment . Must be a Republican !! Are you Rush L. in > disguise?? Did you know that Peter is a Windows user? its true. He's a closed source Windows programmer. In other words he is responsible for a lot of the "brain dead" applications that run on Windows. Amazing isn't it? So is his lickspittle "mini me" Chris Ahlstrom.
From: FromTheRafters on 23 Mar 2010 17:04
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message news:ho9tkk$kbp$03$1(a)news.t-online.com... > RayLopez99 wrote: > >> Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus >> (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using >> commercial antivirus protection? > > Yes > >> One of the claims of the Linux crowd is that such problems are >> legion. But talking so some of the people at alt.comp.anti-virus I >> get the impression such problems are rare. >> >> Who is more right? > > So the estimate that around 30% of all windows computers are infected > is > "rare problems" The question was about the subset of all Windows computers that are "protected" by commercial AV, not the entire set of Windows computers estimated (by you?) to be infested. I can guess that greater than that 30% of all Windows computers are completely unprotected (after their bundled AV runs out). |