Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| Sophos: Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
quote:
We grabbed the next 10 unique samples that arrived in the SophosLabs feed to see how well the newer, more secure version of Windows and UAC held up. Unfortunately, despite Microsoft's claims, Windows 7 disappointed just like earlier versions of Windows. The good news is that, of the freshest 10 samples that arrived, 2 would not operate correctly under Windows 7.
User Account Control did block one sample; however, its failure to block anything else just reinforces my warning prior to the Windows 7 launch that UAC's default configuration is not effective at protecting a PC from modern malware.
Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
--
Obamanomics: Trickle-up poverty. |
|
Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
| If only AV companies could claim they can stop all modern malware effectively. With common sense failure, insufficient education and lack of awarness of the dangers on the net nothing can
Cudni
--
"what we know we know the same, what we don't know, we don't know it differently."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2009 |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Cabal
well just remember the crapware/virus makers have had the OS for awhile too just as the legit users with betas and RCs have.
AV software is important, as is not using IE. and of course most important factor in infection prevention is user education. i think most bad things get onto a computer because someone clicks "yes"
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB | reply to Cabal
Anyone got a copy of Troj/FakeAV-AFY or Troj/FakeAV-AFX they can send me?
Blake |
|
sMh
join:2003-08-24 | reply to Cabal
What exactly happened?
a) Ran malware - no UAC prompt - user infected
b) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'Yes' - user infected
c) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'No' - user infected |
|
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
 ·Shaw
1 edit | said by sMh  :What exactly happened? a) Ran malware - no UAC prompt - user infected b) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'Yes' - user infected c) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'No' - user infected Oh your taking my fun out of this as I wanted those viruses so I could see the install process as this is what I was thinking.
Blake
Edit - Sometimes I think UAC should be a great big hammer which comes out and pounds the keyboard and mouse into little bits as that is what is needed to protect some users. |
|
jerry666
Premium
join:2002-12-12
Sainte-Anne-Des-Lacs, QC
clubs:
 ·Uniserve
| reply to Cabal
Well they ain't going to sell many AV if windows blocked them all . What were the parameters ? Click yess to all the virus prompts and hope win-7 is smarter than the operator , or did these virus infect it with no user involvement ? Were they limited accounts or admin with UAC ? |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
·Shaw
| reply to Cabal
People forget the bad guys are always upping their game, so this is not a surprise. XP still has vulnerabilities exposed because the sophistication of the miscreant's increases, and with new attack vectors.
'Tis the nature of the beast in my mind.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| reply to sMh
said by sMh :What exactly happened? a) Ran malware - no UAC prompt - user infected b) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'Yes' - user infected c) Ran malware - UAC prompt - Clicked 'No' - user infected *user* infected vs *machine* infected is kinda a big difference, though. Was the machine infected, or just the user account?
There is no protection from a highly motivated stupid user. Especially one with admin rights.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
Tommyastro
join:2004-01-18
Poughkeepsie, NY | reply to Cabal
Wow, what a shock!
NOT! |
|
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·Bresnan Online
| It doesn't surprise me.
Sure, a machine without AV is going to get infected. That's obvious. Why do you think I suggest ESET all the time?
No OS is completely safe from viruses/hackers/etc. I'm just glad Windows 7 fixed the joke that was Vista.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,Win7]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] |
|
tempnexus
Premium
join:1999-08-11
Boston, MA
2 edits | reply to Cabal
I honestly think it was:
Download- Click Install under Admin Rights - UAC pops up with red banner asking "WTF are you doing? You are about to overwrite system32 with gaypron? " - user selects YES -"UAC pops up again saying WOW dude the process wants raw access into your C drive are you sure about that?" - user selects YES - WIndows Defender Pops up saying "Hey hey all of your sites in the host file are being all redirect to IllGaySite.nk are you sure?" -- user selects YES.
SYSTEM INFECTED.....GOTTA write a story about it so our AV company can stay in business. Not like Sophos actually does a decent job in detection anyhow, but circumventing all saveguards instigated in Windows still allows a malicious file to infect it. It's like opening a syringe and filling it up with a vial take out of a Class III biosafety cabinet in BSL4 lab and then taking off your Positive pressure personnel suit to inject it into your veins just to see if indeed can infect you. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Cabal
I wouldn't be surprised if they did this for media attention, by testing 100 viruses and finding only 8 that can infect Windows 7. Drop that 100 down to 10 and it sounds sensationalist.
Windows Vista has been incredibly safe for our home users that download plenty of sketchy files, considerably more than XP users. I doubt Windows 7 is less secure than Vista. |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny | Uhh, dude?
It said "Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses". Not the inverse. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | Huh? You might have misunderstood my point. |
|
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to Cabal
Re: Sophos: Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
How much you wanna bet that Chester's a Mac Fanboi? |
|
AlexandreG
join:2009-08-06
| reply to Cabal
Yeah.. I would love to have more details...
First of all, it is probably the default UAC settings, that are not as good as vista was (but less annoying)...
And if they include user action (pressing yes on the UAC prompt)... I mean... There is just nothing but... NOTHING! possible to do against the user actions... If you clic yes, it's YOUR fault... the computer defenses were working and you chose to ignore them... |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny | reply to urbanriot
Re: Uhh, dude?
I may have. Thanks for that. |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Tommyastro
Re: Sophos: Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
said by Tommyastro :Wow, what a shock! NOT! +1
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
siljaline
mind that delimiter
Premium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC |  reply to Cabal
That would be naked-out-of-the-box  |
|
