AntiVirus is dead

IT-Director.com
http://snipurl.com/1dpri

...you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
ineffective at stopping viruses.

To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,
they use heuristics — which means that they try to recognise the bad
guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV
companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
dramatic rate...

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
> ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
> I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
> down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
> selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
> ineffective at stopping viruses.

And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...

How can you say they are not effective?



--
Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>> selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
>> ineffective at stopping viruses.
>
> And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
> email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...
>
> How can you say they are not effective?

He/she/it is not saying anything. He/she/it is posting extracts from
other people's articles without comment from an anonymous remailer.
Usually this is a troll-sign.

Another one for the Block list

"Ant" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:se-dnUVUIIv6RJ_bnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "Leythos" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>>> selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
>>> ineffective at stopping viruses.
>>
>> And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
>> email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...
>>
>> How can you say they are not effective?
>
> He/she/it is not saying anything. He/she/it is posting extracts from
> other people's articles without comment from an anonymous remailer.
> Usually this is a troll-sign.
>
>

"George Orwell" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:e8f2b8e9f9029b24ea1cd3774e984881@mixmaster.it...
> IT-Director.com
> http://snipurl.com/1dpri
>
> ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
> I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
> down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
> selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
> ineffective at stopping viruses.
>
> To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
> it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
> Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
> is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
> let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,
> they use heuristics - which means that they try to recognise the bad
> guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
> test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
> only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV
> companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
> have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
> dramatic rate...
>

Well with that logic we might as well kill ourselves as we are all going to die no matter what we do


--
Lew/+Silat


The liver is evil. It must be punished.

> ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
> I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
> down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
> selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
> ineffective at stopping viruses.

Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.

Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".

So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!

Turan

George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
news:e8f2b8e9f9029b24ea1cd3774e984881@mixmaster.it:

> To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
> it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
> Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
> is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
> let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,

80% of all new viruses? Where is the research for this claim please?

> they use heuristics — which means that they try to recognise the bad
> guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
> test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
> only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV


Only release the ones that will get through eh? So... the virus writers
do what then with the ones that didn't get thru? erase them and start
over? LoL!

> companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
> have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
> dramatic rate...

Yes, but that's more because of the human factor than anything else. Most
malware can be prevented if the user is properly trained and makes use of
the right software.



--
Dustin Cook
Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - V2.2
web: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk - email:
bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
Pad: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <eu04gg$ibn$1@svr7.m-online.net>
"Turan Fettahoglu" <turan.fe@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
> > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
> > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
> > selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
> > ineffective at stopping viruses.
>
> Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
> many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.
>
> Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".
>
> So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!
>
> Turan

Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBRgSr7wc1ZuHjbNh8EQIVMACg0sI+LJhw35qBm1eSgcmp6CUravIAn0yQ
pYEiHcUGLNdKKaZ6h20CDNxY
=qtcq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

> Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease

Therefore, abstain from internet usage and you're 100% guaranteed never to
become virus infected! I like that analogy!

"Aunti Virus" <"auntivyrus
ATnym.panta-rhei.eu.org"@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org> wrote in message
news:CLSPZ30A39165.365775463@anonymous.poster...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <eu04gg$ibn$1@svr7.m-online.net>
> "Turan Fettahoglu" <turan.fe@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
>> > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
>> > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
>> > selling products http://snipurl.com/pathetic_useless that are
>> > ineffective at stopping viruses.
>>
>> Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
>> many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.
>>
>> Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".
>>
>> So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!
>>
>> Turan
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQA/AwUBRgSr7wc1ZuHjbNh8EQIVMACg0sI+LJhw35qBm1eSgcmp6CUravIAn0yQ
> pYEiHcUGLNdKKaZ6h20CDNxY
> =qtcq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
> than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
> for abuse and hashcash info.
>
>
>
>
>

mr whipple wrote:
>> Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease
>
> Therefore, abstain from internet usage and you're 100% guaranteed never to
> become virus infected! I like that analogy!

except that not all viruses come from the net... you have to abstain
from putting anything into your computer at all...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"