Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Jun 2012 19:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 520853
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-02
This is important because if it's the latter then what's stopping malware from doing that same thing? If it's the first then that would obviously be the safer choice, though it creates some extra steps for 3rd-party AV-makers to take.
If it works like it does now, they do not have to be signed by Microsoft, though they are detected. As it works currently, the Windows Security Center will warn you if you have no AV installed, and if you do have an AV installed, it will warn you if it is out of date.
There already is malware that detects certain AV and even disables them so the malware goes undetected. When that happens the AV companies are normally extremely quick to send an update, so most people don't even notice or get infected.