PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by jim, May 20, 2008.

  1. More from PCTools about Vista Security ...... Article:

    Vista laid low by new malware figures (TechWorld)
    PC Tools fires back with more stats. It looks as if Vista's reputation
    for
    improved security could be heading for the pages of history.
    PC Tools has renewed last week's attack on the platform with new
    figures that
    appear to back up its claim that Vista is almost as
    vulnerable as its predecessors. .....

    5/19/2008 12:06 PM
    Read more | Open in browser

    http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=101536

    Notes.... One thing missing perhaps in statistics is Users who have
    hacked and
    circumvented Vista's security settings such as UAC (User Account
    Control)
    and even simply turning that off or giving permission to malware
    alerts - but
    actually (them) going a lot further than that on any pc. In security,
    which you
    can find
    at so many HiJackThis Logs forums for instance, are all these families
    of
    trojans that are just from bad adult sites mainly apparently. Of
    course there
    was the recent
    "Sony rootkit" that was wrongly used as a protection for theirs. And
    just
    recently there was this nightmare:

    Alluring MP3s, movies hit LimeWire, install malware instead
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Spy-Lerts/message/461

    And of course in P2P swapping services as this - it is giving
    permission to your
    computer system and even the firewall is turned off by users so that
    how many
    of these persons are in these statistics ? They may do the "I don't
    care, I just
    turn off all security and download and then I get the free crap to
    scan and
    remove it" .
    What about all those statistics. (In other words it is absurd to think
    any
    operating system can be run without commercial security softwares
    safely).

    Statistics like these do not appear to reflect that, and especially
    talking
    about just Vista OS (operating system) - because you will find a vast
    amount of
    users
    parading this all over the net posting how "aggravating and annoying"
    security
    settings are and particularly with UAC and other features in Vista.
    Going back
    to the 'XP Years'
    of course also involved a similar situation with DRM (Digital Rights
    Management)
    in Windows Media Player. When you consider the 'dark sides' of the
    internet and
    the "free stuff" crowds and adult oriented malicious content sites and
    all the
    Peer To Peer unlawful file swappings - well it does not take a genius
    to realize
    that
    many of these persons shamelessly and openly discuss this and "work
    arounds". So
    my comment is for these statistics is to at least give a good "guess-
    timate"
    of a percentage that is as accurate as possible to disclude these
    machines from
    statistics. Obviously the percentage of these need that consideration
    to
    disclude them
    with footnotes perhaps. I am sure everyone has heard of this by now -
    stealing
    copyrighted materials and trying not to get caught, which has not
    really worked
    at as unlawful.
    The negative publicity is that PCTools is just pulling a "publicity
    stunt for
    sales" - but we all know better. PCTools is considered one of the top
    security
    products today. I am
    just commenting here noticing there seems to be no mention of these
    other stats
    in this "breaking story" this past week. That can apply to any product
    pubs.

    SEE....

    P2P Dangers (Peer to Peer file swapping)
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BlueCollarPC/links

    Digital rights management
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
     
    Gerald309BCPCNet, May 20, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Shenan Stanley wrote:
    <inline answers>


    Where do you get your numbers for the 'MANY more people use their free
    software than buy any of their tools"?

    I stand corrected. Actually - that was a complete mistake on my part. You
    don't go for the latest OS that may be gaining market share - especially
    with all the bad press surrounding it - you go for the one that already has
    the market share (Windows XP.) The bad press around Windows Vista is
    keeping some people at Windows XP at this point - so even for those who have
    stuck with Windows 98SE/ME/2000 all this time - they are *likely* to move to
    XP before going to anything else... Makes sense.

    Good to know...

    Seems to be. While it is true they also have to deliver on their promise of
    'safer computing' - they are also just playing the odds.

    Many people I deal with would likely not get infested by anything just by
    their own nature. They check email, go to a few select web pages and are
    behind a Cable/DSL router and the Windows XP firewall. Their email provider
    filters out a bunch of the spam already and they have had it drilled in
    their head enough 'don't open the unknown' that they usually just delete it.
    So even if their free product isn't any better than the rest - if the
    marketing hit the person at the right time and they installed it and they
    went a while without issues (whether they would have or not otherwise) -
    they might attribute it to the software and recommend it. Word-of-Mouth
    advertising - people are more likely to listen to that because it seems to
    be coming from people 'just like them'. Basic psychology. ;-)

    True and not. As I discussed just prior to this and taking my quoted
    statement as it is - I said they benefitted from making the problem seem
    larger than it was... Nothin you said disputes that and if the problem isn't
    really that large and the people therefore never experience an issue while
    having said product installed - then they just might be asked, "What do you
    use and do you like it?" and they would answer, "Product X and I haven't had
    any trouble with it!" and the cycle continues. ;-)

    I believe that is what is happening in this thread right now...

    Acted upon - or cause the biggest flame? ;-)

    As for your identity and all those being by you - Never said they were - how
    about I dig deeper...

    Looking at the headers (of the articles that would be in the same trend as
    this one) - I see most of them are coming from bellsouth.net.
    bignews#.bellsouth.net to be specific. Using Microsoft Outlook Express
    6.00.2900.3138...

    While you are probably not the only - I do not believe that is
    the only criteria being used. ;-)
    Responded to seperately - as this seems to be sopmething better dealt with
    away from the topic at hand.
     
    Shenan Stanley, May 20, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Furthermore...

    Does running Vista make you feel safe from malware? (ZDNet)

    Another day, another report casts doubt on Vista's immunity to
    malware. Do you
    feel safer running Vista?
    "PC Tools maintain that Vista is not immune from online threats.
    Further
    research and analysis has confirmed
    our contention that additional third-party protection is absolutely
    necessary
    for all Windows Vista users" said...

    5/20/2008 9:42 AM
    Read more | Open in browser

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1897


    Notes... "Duh"... No one who ever made a computer disk operating
    system said it
    could operate without conventional
    malware shareware softwares - except maybe the clowns about Apple/Mac
    and Linux
    OS. The term "third-party protection"
    means antivirus and antispyware shareware programs. Gee, I can not
    remember
    getting a new computer running Windows
    without a Norton Antivirus free 30 day trial in it, which means even
    our
    computer manufacturers (Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, etc)
    believe this already like going back at least to my first in year
    2001. Enough
    of this spin city already - BUT - this article has some
    good information bits in it about Vista OS.

    The point of my comments is who ever said Vista OS could operate
    without ever
    getting infected with malware ? So like this means
    what is this author's point of reference for the story ? Oh well.....
    there you
    are. This was a bit immature of a statement. Really !
     
    Gerald309BCPCNet, May 20, 2008
    #23
  4. jim

    Dave Guest

    You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low risk level:
    http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2004-112111-3912-99

    Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years old, like these:

    http://www.computing.net/answers/security/trojanvundo-virus-unable-repair/16663.html
    http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vundo_Rootkit_Detection_and_Removal_Procedure
    http://forums.techguy.org/malware-removal-hijackthis-logs/406823-solved-trojan-vundo-virus.html
    http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?ID=42097

    When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation with all latest updates etc?
     
    Dave, May 21, 2008
    #24
  5. Shenan Stanley, May 21, 2008
    #25
  6. jim

    Dave Guest

    Here we go again.
    You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
    I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.

    The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
    Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
    will count as a hit.

    I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
    succesfully infected with Vundo.

    Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.

    That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.
     
    Dave, May 21, 2008
    #26
  7. Actually - no - it tells you I don't care about your search for ways to
    "checkout [your] security settings". I never did. I was appalled that you
    would ASK for someone to post links to sites that could infest a system -
    that's it. No other motivation, no other reason for answering.
     
    Shenan Stanley, May 21, 2008
    #27
  8. jim

    propman Guest

    <chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part of his
    sig, would be more professional than to post results from a Google
    general search than a Google Advanced search.

    <chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search and do
    your own? If you had you would have found entries such as the following:

    http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/

    This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more of the
    links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave that chore
    up to your level of interest on the subject.


    .............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
    your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
    participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem solutions.

    Just ma .02 cents worth.
     
    propman, May 21, 2008
    #28
  9. propman wrote:
    I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
    nothing to research - so I did none.

    Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
    conversation?
     
    Shenan Stanley, May 21, 2008
    #29
  10. jim

    propman Guest

    Yeppers....more interested in a pissing contest

    <plonk>
     
    propman, May 21, 2008
    #30
  11. You use the phrases 'pissing contest' and <chuckle> and I am
    non-professional?
    That's ironic - at least.

    If you are going to accuse someone of being non-professional - it helps to
    act that way yourself.
     
    Shenan Stanley, May 21, 2008
    #31
  12. jim

    jim Guest

    You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
    Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
    Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
    less-than -honest manner ("Most percentages/statistics are made up to
    benefit those making up the numbers. When confronted, it is usually
    difficult for those who made up the numbers to present concrete facts
    backing them up and usually easy for someone else to bend/make up numbers of
    their own to the contrary. This is especially true when dealing with things
    that are difficult to quantify because of the lack of reliable numbers (like
    the security of an OS versus an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSs
    are and what other protections may already be in place that prevent the
    supposed issues from ever even reaching the OS...))".

    IMHO, this is irrational considering the number of firms and people (both in
    and out of Microsoft's pocket) that would call them on this. To do what you
    suggested is irrational from a business point of view - considering the
    stink that would surround the company once exposed.

    Then, you go on to attack me - insinuating that I (for some reason only
    known to you) would post articles with a less-than-genuine reason into
    particular newsgroups. This too is irrational. What would be the purpose?
    And, what has that got to do with the current post? If the current post's
    logic or facts are in error, please point those things out without diverting
    to personal attacks upon the poster.

    You gave a link that listed many many articles to which I have no connection
    whatsoever. And, you have given no valid reason that a person would waste
    his/her time posting false warnings to a newsgroup - much less a reason,
    that you can back up factually, for me doing so.

    Please stick to the topic at hand if you want a response. If you would like
    to start a separate thread concerning my postings to the newsgroup, please
    do so.

    Remember, the topic is that PCTools reveals Vista to be less secure than
    Windows 2000 (but more secure than XP).

    Best regards,

    jim
     
    jim, May 21, 2008
    #32
  13. jim

    Rojo Habe Guest

    No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is "implied",
    and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied anything of the
    sort.
     
    Rojo Habe, May 22, 2008
    #33
  14. jim

    jim Guest

    So, did you not read....

    "Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
    numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up the
    numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
    someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This is
    especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
    because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
    an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
    protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
    ever even reaching the OS...)"

    ...in his post, or did you just prefer to ignore it?

    jim
     
    jim, May 23, 2008
    #34
  15. jim

    Rojo Habe Guest

    There's nothing there to imply anybody's being "less than honest". They're
    just doing what all businesses do and interpreting stats to suit their own
    ends.
     
    Rojo Habe, May 27, 2008
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.