Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windowswhen using AV protection?

[SteveH]

But how many of those are genuine and how many are false positives?
Those ones found in the system restore folder give no indication of
the original filename and I don't have the time to start rooting
around in there to find out if the file is genuine or not, I don't
know about you.

Recently, I was given a computer from a friend which had XP on it and
my AVG was fine until yesterday, when it found what it said was
spyware (a genuine file from bt called btwebcontrol.dll). Nothing
wrong with it. They used to have BT broadband. It also found a file
in the system restore which it categorised under the same virus name,
which I am presuming is the exact same file, except it's just called
A0000462.dll.

2 false positives. It seems these days AVG is finding files in system
restore which it didn't have a problem with previously and I am happy
to accept are genuine files and not any kind of virus. Your logs
seem to indicate the same habit from Kaspersky.

The chifrax trojan was real. The rest may have been false positives.
Providing removing then doesn't affect the operation of my PC, I don't give
a toss what they are. And I think you'll find a bit of Googling will reveal
that newer Versions of AVG seem to have a bit of a reputation for 'finding'
false positives

 

[SteveH]

Based on your cross posting changes, your inability to comprehend real
issues and their causes, I can only assume that you're trolling.

Of course he's trolling. But he seems to be the sort of troll that likes
demonstrating how utterly stupid he is. The cure of course, is the same as
with all trolls, stop feeding him.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Never mind the damage infected computers do while they are pointlessly
left running.

Oh, and never mind the energy savings, either.

I would never base a decision like that on whether it speeds up the
wearing-out process. There are larger questions to consider.

Maybe it wears out the switch on my lamp to turn it on and off, but do
any of you think we should therefore leave all lamps burning night and
day? Nobody would assert that we should, for fear of seeming foolish,
because to everybody THAT is obviously preposterous.

Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when they are
first energized. It's kinda like those compact florescent bulbs, they
consume most of their power when starting, then are very efficient
thereafter. Putting one in your refrigerator would likely *increase*
your power usage rather than the opposite. There is a point of
diminishing returns when the duty cycle is dialed back too far.

As for wear and tear, much engineering has been done to mitigate any
increases in failure rate due to the thermal effects of duty cycles in
electrical/electronic equipment. Still..mitigation is only a step in the
right direction, not a cure.

 

[SteveH]

Troll or not, my points stand. Your 'point' is on your head. Quit
reading the signature line and start reading the content of the post.

RL

Troll or Stupid, which is it?

 

[RayLopez99]

You missed the point.

No you missed the point actually, but it's a fine distinction so no
shame. Let me explain. I looked into this story, and it's not what
this discussion is about. What you mention (and thanks for finding
this story BTW) is a flaw in Internet Explorer, that allowed a hacker
to gain control of your PC via ActiveX. A week after January 15,
2010, when this story broke, Microsoft issued a patch to correct this
flaw. ("Microsoft patches "Google hack" flaw in Internet Explorer 20
Jan 2010 ... Microsoft has issued an out-of-band security patch to
address a remote code ... Microsoft patches "Google hack" flaw in
Internet Explorer ...")

So this was essentially a security flaw that affected various Chinese
dissidents who were using IE to post messages via Google.
Unfortunately for them, they paid with their freedom and maybe their
lives (who knows? news is censored from China).

Tragic, but again this is akin to a "zero day" attack. In fact, it's
even more rare than a "zero day" attack since it probably takes more
skill to exploit such a feature in IE (IMO) than merely writing a new
virus. This is one reason Google decided to get out of China (and
good for them) because they concluded the Chinese government must be
devoting resources to track down dissidents who use Google.

But again, it's got nothing to do with this thread except reinforce
that yes, viruses can be created to harm you, but, once you install
the antidote to them (the update/ the patch, the service pack, etc,
and again, it's up to you to get the patch installed) you are safe.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

Troll or Stupid, which is it?

Neither. Begging for attention SteveH?

What don't you understand about computers that's so difficult? Let me
summarize this thread for you, since you don't like nuances, I'll keep
it simple:

Install your MSFT patches, keep your AV / malware shields up, get a
firewall, and then you are safe from everything except esoteric hacks
of IE from professional Chinese government computer scientists, or
from zero-day attacks, which, as various knowledgeable posters have
stated in this thread, are not that common anyway (by they time they
become common, a patch is issued by Kaspersky and others).

A compound sentence but I trust you're smart enough to digest that?
Maybe my trust is misplaced?

Yes a worm in 2003 disrupted the net for a day--big deal. If it was
Linux rather than Windows probably the same thing would have happened.

Bottom line: Linux losers, quit spreading FUD about Windows and
security. There is no security problem with Windows, properly
maintained, as I defined it.

RL

 

[David W. Hodgins]

But again, it's got nothing to do with this thread except reinforce
that yes, viruses can be created to harm you, but, once you install
the antidote to them (the update/ the patch, the service pack, etc,
and again, it's up to you to get the patch installed) you are safe.

Yes that particular problem has now been patched. How many of the
systems that got infected prior to the patch have not yet been
cleaned?

Once the system gets infected, it cannot be trusted, until a full
day is wasted wiping the system, reinstalling, downloading updates,
rebooting about a dozen times to install the updates, etc.

Your refusal to accept the clear fact that m$ never has been, and
never will be secure, makes it clear you are nothing but a troll.

I would never use an m$ system for online banking, or anything
where I really care about the safety of my data.

Don't bother responding.

 

[Dustin Cook]

I see you've graduated to troll status.

Oh, he did that awhile ago. I've been reading this long ass thread.. and
when I saw he claimed he was a coder.. (of some sort I guess), and that
the SQL injection was ancient history, I already decided he had to be a
troll. Or, he's just starting to learn to code in a college...?

 

[Dustin Cook]

Neither. Begging for attention SteveH?

What don't you understand about computers that's so difficult? Let me
summarize this thread for you, since you don't like nuances, I'll keep
it simple:

Install your MSFT patches, keep your AV / malware shields up, get a
firewall, and then you are safe from everything except esoteric hacks
of IE from professional Chinese government computer scientists, or
from zero-day attacks, which, as various knowledgeable posters have
stated in this thread, are not that common anyway (by they time they
become common, a patch is issued by Kaspersky and others).

Uhh, no.. actually, your not. It wouldn't take much programming work to
write some new malicious item which is going to evade ALL current
security AV/AM in place. If your really a coder as you said, you should
know this..

Bottom line: Linux losers, quit spreading FUD about Windows and
security. There is no security problem with Windows, properly
maintained, as I defined it.

I'm not going to take a position on this one. I believe under the right
conditions you can secure a windows box; but the user won't be happy.
However, to just say keep your patches updated and keep your AV uptodate
WILL keep you safe is just.. irresponsible. It will keep you much safer,
yes, but your still not 100%.

 

[RayLopez99]

Yes that particular problem has now been patched.  How many of the
systems that got infected prior to the patch have not yet been
cleaned?

You're asking how many people get infected by zero-day attacks in this
day and age? Probably a very small number, I would imagine less than
1%. I've been computing for over 20 years and never had a virus
attack except back in the days of the sneaker net (and I caught it).
Modern times--zero, with a few false positives.

Once the system gets infected, it cannot be trusted, until a full
day is wasted wiping the system, reinstalling, downloading updates,
rebooting about a dozen times to install the updates, etc.

Your refusal to accept the clear fact that m$ never has been, and
never will be secure, makes it clear you are nothing but a troll.

B.S.! You lost the debate and now you're trying ad homenium attacks.

I would never use an m$ system for online banking, or anything
where I really care about the safety of my data.

I do, and I'm worth millions.

Don't bother responding.

Why? Afraid you might lose the argument?

I agree Linux might be inherently safer (in theory) than Windows, but
properly maintained Windows is incredibly safe. Another way of
putting it: Linux without AV/firewall protection is probably (I
guess) LESS safe than Windows *with* AV/firewall protection.

A topic for another thread perhaps.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

Oh, he did that awhile ago. I've been reading this long ass thread.. and
when I saw he claimed he was a coder.. (of some sort I guess), and that
the SQL injection was ancient history, I already decided he had to be a
troll. Or, he's just starting to learn to code in a college...?

Yes, you're right. I'm a modern coder, so for me, who knows how to
use the Visual Studio .NET framework, SQL injection attacks are
ancient history, correct.

Switch to .NET and join the fun Dustin. What are you, coding in C
still?

RL

 

[Leythos]

You mean if I actually use my tires for stop and go traffic that they
may wear out sooner than if I hypothetically drove and drove and never
stopped? Hmm! That's interesting!

But wouldn't I use more gas if I never stopped? Gotta admit there is
something to that.

In my case, the cost of running the workstations for 16 hours a day and
shutting them off, vs running them 16 hours a day and then letting the
monitor sleep, the Hard-Drives sleep after 1 hour of non-use, the CPU
throttle down, etc... is negligible.

 

[Leythos]

I would never base a decision like that on whether it speeds up the
wearing-out process. There are larger questions to consider.

You're distracted - the comments I made addressed a part of the issue of
turning hardware on/off, nothing about Saving Power.

 

[Leythos]

Hell would freeze over before I allowed MS to install updates on my PC in my
absence. As many here surely know, not /all/ MS updates are safe or even
neecessary for all Windows PC's. It can doenload them in the night (if I
leave my PC on), but it will install them when I've seen what it wants to
install.

That's fine for you, but, since we mostly do BUSINESS systems, those
updates have caused exactly 2 problems impacting about 30 out of
thousands of machines we monitor and support.

While a residential user might, if they are somewhat technical in
nature, be able to manually update, for MOST people, they don't have a
clue and the benefits far outweigh the impact of NOT updating
automatically.

I have two workstations that are set for automatic updates, here in my
office, they have been running for 3 years without a failure and without
needing to be rebuilt - XP machines on a domain. My mother inlaw has a
Dell Dim 2400, bought when the 2400 was new (that was a LONG TIME AGO)
and it's set for automatic updates also - never had a problem.

Almost all of the automatic updates have to do with users having
compromised system or crappy drivers for crappy hardware.

 

[Leythos]

Of course he's trolling. But he seems to be the sort of troll that likes
demonstrating how utterly stupid he is. The cure of course, is the same as
with all trolls, stop feeding him.

Sometimes it's fun to play with the trolls

 

[Leythos]

Bottom line: Linux losers, quit spreading FUD about Windows and
security. There is no security problem with Windows, properly
maintained, as I defined it.

You know, if you had clearly stated that the first time I think that
most of us would have agreed with you, but you didn't.

 

[Leythos]

Oh, he did that awhile ago. I've been reading this long ass thread.. and
when I saw he claimed he was a coder.. (of some sort I guess), and that
the SQL injection was ancient history, I already decided he had to be a
troll. Or, he's just starting to learn to code in a college...?

LOL, we still see SQL compromised machines - what I can't believe is
that people still connect their computers directly to the internet
without any NAT/Firewall device at all.

 

[Leythos]

Yes, you're right. I'm a modern coder, so for me, who knows how to
use the Visual Studio .NET framework, SQL injection attacks are
ancient history, correct.

Switch to .NET and join the fun Dustin. What are you, coding in C
still?

You're funny - we were teaching MS Regional office people how to code in
..Net before it was released to the public - so you're about 9 years
behind the ball.

 

[ToolPackinMama]

Hell would freeze over before I allowed MS to install updates on my PC in my
absence.

I am with you on that.

 

[ToolPackinMama]

Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when they are
first energized.

More... for the whole rest of their lives? Or more for the rest of the
day? Or more... what do you mean by "more"?

As for wear and tear, much engineering has been done to mitigate any
increases in failure rate due to the thermal effects of duty cycles in
electrical/electronic equipment.

I'm sure.

Still..mitigation is only a step in the

right direction, not a cure.

I still am turning my computer off when I am not using it. If not using
it actually reduces the life-cycle of the components (by whatever
means), then I guess I can live with that.

I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when not
in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will
extend the life of the components.

I'm not the one who said it would, anyway, so I don't mind conceding
that point.