Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not...

  • Thread starter Thread starter MEB
  • Start date Start date
M

MEB

Guest
Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1445&tag=nl.e539

Seems the parsing issue has again been addressed as a potential area of
vulnerability.

"... the IT/Security consulting firm n.runs AG claims to have discovered
approximately 800 vulnerabilities within antivirus products based on
exploiting a standard malware scanning process known as "parsing" :"
It isn't reasonable to shuffle this off with the standard "oh just another
business pointing out others failures",

*"The research they cite is based on Secunia's tracking of advisories
affecting antivirus products, as well as research conducted by the
University of Michigan emphasizing on the severity of the vulnerabilities on
a per product basis."*

Might want to see what the rating of your Anti-Virus application is.

Another comparative is located here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

And a May 2008 results:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not...

MEB wrote:

> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products

I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not...

In news:487438D3.C2F56B33@Guy.com at ,
98 Guy contemplated and posted:
| MEB wrote:
|
|> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products
|
| I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
| running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.

Well, let me guess, YOU think NT systems are safer.... the POINT is the
systems and software are vulnerable.. that's ALL of them, some more than
others. HOWEVER, not running Anti-Virus software makes you just another
infecter of others... passing the stuff around and never knowing..
What, you think there are no more viruses on the NET,, no more BackOrifice,
no more exe hacks ...

And a firewall helps to montor that software... something no hardware can
do...

So what's better??? Hmmm....

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not...

MEB wrote:
> In news:487438D3.C2F56B33@Guy.com at ,
> 98 Guy contemplated and posted:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products
>>
>> I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
>> running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.
>
> Well, let me guess, YOU think NT systems are safer.... the POINT is the
> systems and software are vulnerable.. that's ALL of them, some more than
> others. HOWEVER, not running Anti-Virus software makes you just another
> infecter of others... passing the stuff around and never knowing..
> What, you think there are no more viruses on the NET,, no more
> BackOrifice,
> no more exe hacks ...
>
> And a firewall helps to montor that software... something no hardware can
> do...
>
> So what's better??? Hmmm....

DOS.
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

<grin> This is why 9x systems were so successful is because they had DOS as
the underlying maintenance operating system. I really enjoy Chris Quirke's
views on this with the safety of 9x operating systems compared to the
security of NT operating systems.

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> MEB wrote:
> > In news:487438D3.C2F56B33@Guy.com at ,
> > 98 Guy contemplated and posted:
> >> MEB wrote:
> >>
> >>> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products
> >>
> >> I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
> >> running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.
> >
> > Well, let me guess, YOU think NT systems are safer.... the POINT is the
> > systems and software are vulnerable.. that's ALL of them, some more than
> > others. HOWEVER, not running Anti-Virus software makes you just another
> > infecter of others... passing the stuff around and never knowing..
> > What, you think there are no more viruses on the NET,, no more
> > BackOrifice,
> > no more exe hacks ...
> >
> > And a firewall helps to montor that software... something no hardware can
> > do...
> >
> > So what's better??? Hmmm....
>
> DOS.
>
>
>
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not...

Wrong. DOS is no less vulnerable to viruses than Windows.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uqel3HY4IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> MEB wrote:
>> In news:487438D3.C2F56B33@Guy.com at ,
>> 98 Guy contemplated and posted:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products
>>>
>>> I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
>>> running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.
>>
>> Well, let me guess, YOU think NT systems are safer.... the POINT is the
>> systems and software are vulnerable.. that's ALL of them, some more than
>> others. HOWEVER, not running Anti-Virus software makes you just another
>> infecter of others... passing the stuff around and never knowing..
>> What, you think there are no more viruses on the NET,, no more
>> BackOrifice,
>> no more exe hacks ...
>>
>> And a firewall helps to montor that software... something no hardware can
>> do...
>>
>> So what's better??? Hmmm....
>
> DOS.
>
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

You are right, Gary. Perhaps I should have started a new post on the issue
since it is much more general then the subject topic.

I was thinking in a more general sense of hackers being able to target the
additional services that Windows XP Professional provides for users and this
allows them to target a greater surface area in looking for vulnerabilities.
In addition, if the user does not turn off remote access then that can be a
potential security hole in XP. The thing about 9x machines is that they are
standalone machines as compared to XP and Vista that big companies and
governments can more easily connect as one. As a home user, I also like the
flexibility of the machine as being my own. However, Microsoft Easy
Assistance is a great tool that allows Microsoft Technicians to help you work
on your computer with XP Professional so in my opinion each kernel type has
its advantages and disadvantages. I have heard rumors that parts of the NT
source code were leaked over the Internet and that this has not happened with
9x source code but I cannot prove this point since it is a rumor. I also
like 98 Second Edition for old-school gaming as well as its flexibility with
DOS.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> Wrong. DOS is no less vulnerable to viruses than Windows.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://grystmill.com
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uqel3HY4IHA.3784@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > MEB wrote:
> >> In news:487438D3.C2F56B33@Guy.com at ,
> >> 98 Guy contemplated and posted:
> >>> MEB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Approximately 800 vulnerabilities discovered in Anti-Virus products
> >>>
> >>> I've been saying (for more than a year) that AV software, along with
> >>> running a software firewall, was basically useless on win-98 systems.
> >>
> >> Well, let me guess, YOU think NT systems are safer.... the POINT is the
> >> systems and software are vulnerable.. that's ALL of them, some more than
> >> others. HOWEVER, not running Anti-Virus software makes you just another
> >> infecter of others... passing the stuff around and never knowing..
> >> What, you think there are no more viruses on the NET,, no more
> >> BackOrifice,
> >> no more exe hacks ...
> >>
> >> And a firewall helps to montor that software... something no hardware can
> >> do...
> >>
> >> So what's better??? Hmmm....
> >
> > DOS.
> >
>
>
>
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Dan wrote:

> You are right, Gary.

It's always sad to see Gary's ass get kissed like this...
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..


"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48752237.6B355E12@Guy.com...
> Dan wrote:
>
>> You are right, Gary.
>
> It's always sad to see Gary's ass get kissed like this...

The alternative is Gary giving another public spanking :)
--
Dave

Speculation on a product or material that is
an obvious need, is not speculation per se
as there is no risk to the speculator.
Common were those selling food and other
supplies in the gold rush days.
In this case, its oil and its everyone who
bites the bullet. And most everyone has no gold
to be made, just business as usual.
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Next on my list of people who need spankings are people who reply to idiots
that I've blocked.

You managed to bring two of them to the light of day. Puts you near the top
of the list, <s>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:OIBp06n4IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48752237.6B355E12@Guy.com...
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> You are right, Gary.
>>
>> It's always sad to see Gary's ass get kissed like this...
>
> The alternative is Gary giving another public spanking :)
> --
> Dave
>
> Speculation on a product or material that is
> an obvious need, is not speculation per se
> as there is no risk to the speculator.
> Common were those selling food and other
> supplies in the gold rush days.
> In this case, its oil and its everyone who
> bites the bullet. And most everyone has no gold
> to be made, just business as usual.
>
>
 
Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Re: Hmm, so your Anti-virus program is protecting you? Maybe not..

Top-poster "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> Next on my list of people who need spankings are people who reply
> to idiots that I've blocked.

As Gary sticks his head even further into the sand...
 
Back
Top