OSNews

I was thinking much the same for my favorite browser for viewing text only pages and for fast downloads.

NetPositive is fast, simple and without all those flashly (pun intended) techs that seem to get in the way of getting at the raw info you want. I am sure a hacker can crash the browser, crashing the stack is meaningless as I can restart it with two mouseclicks. Running a zombie program thru NetPositive - not going to happen.

When I read about the European Comission(?) warning Microsoft to not block these anti-ms-bugs firms out, I got puzzled. If Microsoft was able to produce a secure OS, what would they do? What if Windows got rid of virus and their firewall (or services disabled) worked as it should (and all the ports were documented)?

They created the business for these companies, what now? Aren't they cornered?

Edited 2006-09-25 16:27

They could prevent the flaws in code before it gets to the wild, and they can offer patches through Windows Update, without adding a new UI blatantly designed to compete against these other companies.
Which are probably a sore-point for MS, in that they even exist, in the first place. Companies who exist for no other reason than your product is flawed. :S

If you're on a Windows box and have an active connection to the Internet, you need some form of active AV. Period.

The question is, signatures on the AV are added _after_ the virus is spread, what is an AV worth by then?

That's why I can't understand how users permited MS to get here... Marketing throwing sand on people's eyes...

Same thing its always been worth. Namely reducing your risk of being screwed over if you weren't one of the people initially infected and, more importantly from where I'm sitting, making you less of a liability to the rest of the net.

If you're not going to get laid, why bother buying condoms? I don't understand this...if I'm never going to drive in the snow, should I get snow tires anyway?

i think the grandpa post talked about a active internet connection. so if your never going to connect said computer to the net (ie, never get laid) dont bother with the AV

Dude! Don't you know? There is no safe condom! Security is an illusion, but death is certain. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO your condom analogy was in poor taste. There's been too many victims to the HIV epidimic who had condoms fail them. I can't have it on my conscious, that I didn't stop to warn you. In life, numbers do count.

Being in a committed relationship for 4 years, I have no concern about it. Maybe in the future, but I won't be concerned until I am in a situation where I actually have to worry about STDs.

My point was not in poor taste. I wasn't even referring to the "viral" nature of sex, but that if you are not having sex, then condoms really aren't necessary. I can see where, in hindsight, it was probably a poor choice. I apologize.

If you're on a Windows box and have an active connection to the Internet, you need some form of active AV. Period.

This is BS. Virus's don't just hop onto your machine at random over the internet. With a hardware firewall and safe browsing habits you can reduce your virus infection risk to near zero. If you have a teenager clicking on every link on everyone's myspace crapsite however.. no amount of AV software is too much.

AV software slows machines and makes them buggy and prone to crashing. For a lot of people the solution is worse than the problem.

Yes, because we all know exploits that require no user interaction to do their damage simply do not exist. Certainly not in applications that you would allow through your firewall.

What is it with people and bitter sarcasm lately? I need to find an internet that doesn't let obnoxious kids on.

My point is this... those exploits that require user interaction.. they require the user to interact with them. Don't. Avoid risky browsing, especially with IE. Most of the people I know can manage to do it. If you can't, go ahead and load your machine up wiht AV software and cross your fingers and hope that it works.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that without AV you aren't safe and that with AV you are. Anit-Virus software doesn't make you safe it just makes risky behavior less risky. It's like having a parachute when you are flying.. it's only useful if you plan to jump out of the plane and it doesn't make jumping out safe, just safer.

If your computer's security involves detecting when your computer gets infected and reacting to it.. it's not really secure is it.

Edited 2006-09-25 18:13

Valid points.
I'll agree AV shouldn't be your only line of defense, not by a long shot. That said, not engaging in known risky behavior isn't much of an excuse for not keeping prophylactic measures around just in case.

Wow, I guess all my windows boxes must be infected with loads and loads of malware, virii, and worms by now... considering how many years they've been running 24x7 (with many many reboots of course) on an "active" internet connection with absolutely NO "active" AV software running...

yes, I occasionally scan them using something like BitDefender - and anti-spyware programs like Spybot S&D or AdAware - but I pretty much NEVER find anything... as I would expect.

I will point out that prior to switching to Firefox, I found that my wife and relatives that came to my house and used my computer tended to install a LOT more crapware "activex" controls (mostly commercial garbage) than they do now... I feel a lot safer leaving my machines "at the mercy of my family" than I ever did before.

I despise commercial "security software" as it is truly the worst thing that happens to new store-bought computers as soon as they're turned on for the first time.

I will point out that prior to switching to Firefox, I found that my wife and relatives that came to my house and used my computer tended to install a LOT more crapware "activex" controls (mostly commercial garbage) than they do now... I feel a lot safer leaving my machines "at the mercy of my family" than I ever did before.

Give them user accounts. Don't run as admin. Then the worst they can do is muck up their user accounts which you can just delete. Then you can scold them about not being morons and give them a new fresh account to try again.
Futhermore they are less likely to even muck up their user account because most malware and unnecessary installations will stop dead in their tracks when they can't write to any system directories.

I am not sure that is true. Even Windows can be set up that it automaticly restores from a protected image of the working hard drive. In that case no virus can damage the system.

And what about a Windows CE system with all the software in ROM? You probably could mess up some data files, but active virus will not survive a power cycle.

A bit rough, though...

But nice calculations... But each bug should probably be weighed.

Time should probably be exponential too. One day isn't a big deal, but as the days pile on the threat for the problem to be pandemic increases, I think, exponentially.

Anyone want to propose something else? I just don't think it should be linear.

FireFox: 45 x 1 = 45
Opera: 7 x ? = ?
Safari: 12 x 5 = 60
IE: 38 x 9 = 342

According to the article, Opera got to the bugs within 2 days.

So 7 x 2 = 14.

"How about a report of bugs in Symantec's software offerings?"

There are no computers able to count that high.

It's a bit bloated. All the applications together could easily collide

I stick with Antivir and Sygate (no longer in development it appears - taken over by Symantec ) - and AdAwareSE Personal...

3 apps - that ought to do it in conjuction with K-Meleon or other Gecko-browsers.

Symantic are like current Governments, they see they irrelevance and thus are spreading FUD to support their existance.

I would have to say that Symantic is one company with IT products I personally shy away from and advise all other people in my business to do as well. I have never seen a network get so easily owned by a trojen as with one that is suposedly "protected" by Symantic products. The only things they have made that are of use to the IT world are SpeedDisk, Ghost, and WinDoctor which when used in combination with another reg cleaning tool can be quite effective.

Their Security Products BLOW.

Yup. Sygate is good if you still have it, but unfortunately it was ditched by Symantec. They buy competitors and kill them, leaving their poor Symantec product as the survivor.

Anybody with knowledge about other Sygate-like firewalls?

//I stick with Antivir and Sygate (no longer in development it appears - taken over by Symantec ) - and AdAwareSE Personal... //

Not good enough. The computer that my son uses has Windows, Antivir, AdAwareSE Personal and a separate hardware firewall built in to the router, and yet still the machine picked up an infection.

I have advised him to use the dual-boot and run Firefox under Linux to use the Internet.

When the machines boot to Linux, I assign them a different fixed IP to when they boot into Windows. Shortly, I will set filtering rules in the router so that when the machines boot to Windows they have no access to the Internet. That way, my son will only be able to browse the Internet if he boots the machine to Linux.

That will save me a lot of hours from cleaning the Windows machines of infections.

Edited 2006-09-26 01:12

Didn't Antivir immediately discover the infection?

I've had 1(!) infection in two years, and that one was immediately discovered and promptly removed - and it took only a few minutes to ensure that everything was okay. Of course it helps that I use Thunderbird for mails, and only on Linux.

But usually you won't be infected by viruses unless you use warez. Then of course you must expect to be hit quite often (according to information from secunia and other security related companies).

In your case I assume we're talking about an Error 40

Edited 2006-09-26 01:22

//Didn't Antivir immediately discover the infection? //

No.

My son reported that every few minutes the browser would open a site that he hadn't asked for. Unsolicited advertising.

I ran Adaware. It told me there was an installation of Look4me on the system. I told Adaware to remove it. Adaware said it had done so. I re-booted.

... Infection still there. Ran Adaware again. Detected again. Removed again, rebooted again ... still there.

Ran Adaware again. Detected again. Removed again, rebooted again ... still there.

That was enough times. I googled Look4me.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=look4me+virus&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe...

... and found a way to remove it.

The long and the short of it was, the machine got infected, despite the protections I had in place.

It got infected because it was a Windows machine.

Therefore, the cure is, don't use a Windows machine. (That is my own policy anyway, certainly for uses such as Internet banking, but I suppose it isn't as important for a homework and games machine).

PS: there is no warez on the machine.

Edited 2006-09-26 01:50

This seems like a terrible bandaid to a much bigger problem. Why not teach the kid how to use the internet properly? Why not teach him how to scan for virus' himself?

//This seems like a terrible bandaid to a much bigger problem.//

Au contraire, it is a wonderful fix to the problem. All of the problems, annoyances and costs of Windows disappear. It saves heaps of my time, as well.

//Why not teach the kid how to use the internet properly? Why not teach him how to scan for virus' himself?//

He does use it properly ... in the sense that he uses the machine for what it is intended, in the correct manner. He is not doing a single thing wrong that an ordinary Windows user is not supposed to be doing.

In order to keep my machine clean and working correctly, the thing I have to cure him of is using Windows, not of using the internet. (It turns out in our case, going against the commonly accepted stereotypes, that the father in our case is the savvy PC geek and the kid is the one who asks "how do I use this?").

As Symantec will happily tell you, and to show that I am on topic: "Symantec: 'There Is No Safe Browser'".

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/15965/Symantec-There-Is-No-Safe-Bro...

What they actually mean, of course, (and what they somehow fail to mention) is that the there is no safe browser on Windows.

Edited 2006-09-26 06:01

What's that have to do with IE?

Any browser on windows, run under admin, has "root" access. This includes Firefox.

//Any browser on windows, run under admin, has "root" access. This includes Firefox.//

Agreed. The real problem is Windows.

//What's that have to do with IE?//

IE is part of Windows. IE is therefore part of the real problem.

To be secure on the web, one solution is to run Firefox under Linux.

Edited 2006-09-26 01:12

No, it has nothing to do with IE.

I use Opera on Windows and I'm just fine.

//No, it has nothing to do with IE.

I use Opera on Windows and I'm just fine.//

The point is, most users are not fine. With every "protection" there is available, Windows still gets infected.

Most of the so-called "protection" available isn't really protection at all ... it is merely detection of infections after the event.

Microsoft have consistently refused to fix the real problem - that being that Windows will execute stuff that it has no idea about where it came from, and that has not been given permissions to execute by any local user of the machine at all (let alone an admin).

That is why using Windows is a risk of infection. Using Opera won't save you.

For example, this one:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2017620,00.asp

... is a very recent malware attack on a zero-day exploit in VML on Windows.

Being fully patched and firewalled won't save you.

Not using Windows will save you, however.

Edited 2006-09-26 03:12

.. How exactly am I vulnerable to an IE EXPLOIT while using Opera?

Also, not usingWindows won't "save" you. At most, it'll decrease risk.

//.. How exactly am I vulnerable to an IE EXPLOIT while using Opera? //

That particular exploit may not affect you. There are many that will.

As said by another poster: "The sheer amount of viruses in the wild means that, no matter how careful your are or how much you think you know, at some point you're going to receive one in an email or a drive-by download on a website."

... or even on a CD you purchased from a reputable company.

... and Windows will happily execute it for you without question.

//Also, not usingWindows won't "save" you. At most, it'll decrease risk.//

There are no known active self-propogating malware programs out there, in the wild, ever detected for my particular combination of Firefox running under Linux. Especially since I install on this system only software from open-source repositories.

At this time, not using Windows in this particular way reduces the known risk to zero.

Edited 2006-09-26 04:29

"That particular exploit may not affect you. There are many that will."

Then don't say the below, ffs:

"Using Opera won't save you.

For example, this one:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2017620,00.asp

... is a very recent malware attack on a zero-day exploit in VML on Windows.

Being fully patched and firewalled won't save you."

Edited 2006-09-26 04:43

//* *nix and OS X users think they're immune to viruses, and they're right, only in the sense that none exist in significant volumes yet. But their day will come. //

Debatable. Very, very debatable.

How is a virus going to propogate past the "execute permissions" roadblock? People have been trying for years to design a virus to get past that, and their success is measured by the fact that none exist in the wild.

Also, how is malware going to "trojan" its way on to a system where the policy is "install only from open source repositories"?

There is a strong case to be made for a claim that the virus and malware situation with Linux and OSX will never ever get anywhere near the plague proportions it is on Windows, regardless of how popular either of those operating systems eventually become.

* *nix and OS X users think they're immune to viruses, and they're right, only in the sense that none exist in significant volumes yet. But their day will come.

Exept that on *nix file suffixes don't mean anything.You have to specifically chmod + <..>.

Execpt that with linux it's possible to make a SELinux policy for firefox or to simply add a AppArmor policy or patch the kernel with exec-shield,grsecurity,PAX,RSBAC,etc

Can you harden and compile your windows kernel?