Vista and third party Virus scanners

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Keith (Southend), Oct 2, 2006.

  1. Keith (Southend), Oct 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. From: "Keith (Southend)" <>

    | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
    |
    | I think this is a very bad move by Microsoft, maybe the first crack in
    | the empire if they see this one through!
    |
    | Now where's that book on "Linix"

    Here's something to add to this...

    http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/?p=95

    "What makes this attack interesting, is the fact that it appears that Microsoft’s antivirus
    product added detection three days ago. The only public information on these threats is the
    boiler plate Malicious Software Encyclopedia entries (which show an incorrect discovery date
    of Sep 26, when virus definition files from Sep 23 detect):

    a.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.W
    b.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.X
    There isn’t a public advisory from Microsoft; suggesting the Microsoft’s security team knew
    of this in-the-wild attack but did not make the information public."


    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith (Southend)

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:53 +0100, "Keith (Southend)"
    <> wrote:

    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
    >
    >I think this is a very bad move by Microsoft, maybe the first crack in
    >the empire if they see this one through!


    On previous versions Mcafee and Norton cause more problems
    than they cure. Their products have outlived their usefulness.

    >Now where's that book on "Linix"


    Look under dyslexia

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 2, 2006
    #3
  4. David H. Lipman wrote:
    > From: "Keith (Southend)" <>
    >
    > | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
    > |
    > | I think this is a very bad move by Microsoft, maybe the first crack in
    > | the empire if they see this one through!
    > |
    > | Now where's that book on "Linix"
    >
    > Here's something to add to this...
    >
    > http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/?p=95
    >
    > "What makes this attack interesting, is the fact that it appears that Microsoft’s antivirus
    > product added detection three days ago. The only public information on these threats is the
    > boiler plate Malicious Software Encyclopedia entries (which show an incorrect discovery date
    > of Sep 26, when virus definition files from Sep 23 detect):
    >
    > a.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.W
    > b.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.X
    > There isn’t a public advisory from Microsoft; suggesting the Microsoft’s security team knew
    > of this in-the-wild attack but did not make the information public."
    >
    >


    Not that I understand to much of the technical side, but it makes me
    wonder where this could lead. Not being able to install any third party
    software into 'windows', Firefox etc ? This is when the monopolies
    commission should realy get stuck in.

    --
    Keith (Southend)
    http://www.southendweather.net
    e-mail: kreh at southendweather dot net
     
    Keith (Southend), Oct 2, 2006
    #4
  5. From: "Jim Watt" <_way>

    | On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:53 +0100, "Keith (Southend)"
    | <> wrote:
    |
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
    >>
    >> I think this is a very bad move by Microsoft, maybe the first crack in
    >> the empire if they see this one through!

    |
    | On previous versions Mcafee and Norton cause more problems
    | than they cure. Their products have outlived their usefulness.
    |
    >> Now where's that book on "Linix"

    |
    | Look under dyslexia
    |

    Not totally true. The problems lie on the retail versions of their respective products not
    on their corporate/enterprise versions.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Keith (Southend)

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:39:32 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
    <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

    >Not totally true. The problems lie on the retail versions of their respective products not
    >on their corporate/enterprise versions.


    Possibly, but the small business's here tend to buy the retail
    product, or the machines come with it preloaded; particularly
    in the case of Norton who won't supply an English language version
    because they have decided we are part of Spain although we think
    differently.

    AVG is currently my product of choice and deleted Norton from
    the new sony laptop bought recently.

    I turned down the offer on McAfee shares when they had their
    IPO as it looked likely that MS would bundle a product, so
    perhaps am not infallible :)

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 3, 2006
    #6
  7. Keith (Southend)

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:10:07 +0100, "Keith (Southend)"
    <> wrote:

    >David H. Lipman wrote:
    >> From: "Keith (Southend)" <>
    >>
    >> | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5399534.stm
    >> |
    >> | I think this is a very bad move by Microsoft, maybe the first crack in
    >> | the empire if they see this one through!
    >> |
    >> | Now where's that book on "Linix"
    >>
    >> Here's something to add to this...
    >>
    >> http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/?p=95
    >>
    >> "What makes this attack interesting, is the fact that it appears that Microsoft’s antivirus
    >> product added detection three days ago. The only public information on these threats is the
    >> boiler plate Malicious Software Encyclopedia entries (which show an incorrect discovery date
    >> of Sep 26, when virus definition files from Sep 23 detect):
    >>
    >> a.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.W
    >> b.. Exploit:Win32/Controlppt.X
    >> There isn’t a public advisory from Microsoft; suggesting the Microsoft’s security team knew
    >> of this in-the-wild attack but did not make the information public."
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Not that I understand to much of the technical side, but it makes me
    >wonder where this could lead. Not being able to install any third party
    >software into 'windows', Firefox etc ? This is when the monopolies
    >commission should realy get stuck in.


    AV products need to be very tightly integrated into the operating
    system, which is why they are a real pain in the arse when they
    missfunction.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Oct 3, 2006
    #7
  8. From: "Jim Watt" <_way>


    |
    | Possibly, but the small business's here tend to buy the retail
    | product, or the machines come with it preloaded; particularly
    | in the case of Norton who won't supply an English language version
    | because they have decided we are part of Spain although we think
    | differently.
    |
    | AVG is currently my product of choice and deleted Norton from
    | the new sony laptop bought recently.
    |
    | I turned down the offer on McAfee shares when they had their
    | IPO as it looked likely that MS would bundle a product, so
    | perhaps am not infallible :)
    |

    AVG isn't nearly as good as Avira AntiVir.
    For example, Avira had signatures for the VMFill-Exploit one week earlier than AVG.


    The differences between the McAfee retail and corp/enterprise AV version are like night and
    day. Except for using the same Signatures and Engine, the Kernels are completely different.
    If their implementation of the Engine is different in that the Enterprise version will
    provide the Command Line Scanner while the retail only uses a GUI. The Retail version
    forces you to register the product and ties the scanner tightly to Internet Explorer and
    doesn't use NT Services to load. The Enterprise versions has NO dependencies on IE, does
    not require registration and uses NT services to load. It has been a problem where the
    retail version neds an administrative account to download and install signatures. Because
    the Enterprise version uses a NT Service one can easily apply an administrative account to
    perform the update. There are miore differences but those are the most natable. Those
    differences noted in the retail version are much of the cause of problems people "bitch"
    about.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Oct 3, 2006
    #8
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY3k=?=

    Connecting Third Party Wireless Device to Livebox using Windows XP

    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY3k=?=, Dec 3, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,603
    =?Utf-8?B?VHJhY3k=?=
    Dec 5, 2005
  2. David Wood

    Safe RAS access from third party

    David Wood, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    438
    David Wood
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Helmut
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
    Helmut
    Apr 4, 2008
  4. Helmut
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    Helmut
    Apr 8, 2008
  5. Helmut
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    700
    Helmut
    Apr 18, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page