Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#51

Post by jimbobimbo »

beagle3 wrote: post #46
jimbobimbo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand that Windows' past does make it a convenient target for such remarks, most "viruses" now are not really viruses, but malware that either exploit holes in (mostly) third-party software, or goes after a human factor. Stricter security practices from Vista onwards (UAC, low-privileged user accounts by default, etc.) make Windows no easier target than Mac or *x, if social engineering involved. No anti-…

If a site gets you to download an executable, it's now 3 mouse clicks to get it to run on an average desktop setup (As opposed to 0 in the Win2K days and 1 in the early XP days). In Unixes, it's still "open an xterm and chmod a+x executable". There's still a huge difference.

UAC prompts for a password, not a clickthrough.

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#52

Post by jimbobimbo »

lucian303 wrote: post #41
jimbobimbo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand that Windows' past does make it a convenient target for such remarks, most "viruses" now are not really viruses, but malware that either exploit holes in (mostly) third-party software, or goes after a human factor. Stricter security practices from Vista onwards (UAC, low-privileged user accounts by default, etc.) make Windows no easier target than Mac or *x, if social engineering involved. No anti-…

The mass adoption (and with it, the mass misunderstanding/misconfiguration) of Windows makes it a much easier target than UNIX based platforms like OSX, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, etc. That along with the horrible architecture of Windows systems that just about invites malware. Vista failed miserably in both architecture and privileges and in an attempt to fix that in Windows 7, the privilege of accounts is nullified as it…

"That along with the horrible architecture of Windows systems that just about invites malware. Vista failed miserably in both architecture and privileges and in an attempt to fix that in Windows 7, the privilege of accounts is nullified as it was in XP."

The fact that third-party software tops malware charts and absence of Blaster, Sobig, Nimda, etc. kind of pandemics doesn't back up your claim.

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#53

Post by beagle3 »

jimbobimbo wrote: post #51
beagle3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a site gets you to download an executable, it's now 3 mouse clicks to get it to run on an average desktop setup (As opposed to 0 in the Win2K days and 1 in the early XP days). In Unixes, it's still "open an xterm and chmod a+x executable". There's still a huge difference.

UAC prompts for a password, not a clickthrough.

Only if you have a password set up. about half the systems I interact with do not, and the UAC is just a click through on them.

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#54

Post by josephagoss »

lucian303 wrote: post #43
josephagoss wrote: post #16

On windows I have been recommending people to use Microsoft Security Essentials, which is free. I understand Microsoft cannot bundle MSE because of that being a monopoly but I really wish they could, With MSE being pre-installed as opposed to Norton and McAfee trials being pre-installed and asking for money after 3 months.

Better software exists (for free). A little research will lead you to it.

Cool. All the free anti-virus I was aware of has a premium version that is not free and the free version always bugs the user about upgrading. I'd rather not advise such software.

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#55

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

lucian303 wrote: post #37
TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "Karma" is a Hindi word meaning 'Action'. No more, and no less. What you or others may attach to it doesn't matter.

Yes, but it's my understanding that the Hindi concept is much deeper than that. I don't presume to be an expert on this topic (Hindi karma), however. Philosophical karma is a different thing and very simple. What is attached to popular karma is an over-optimistic, unrealistic viewpoint of rewards based on action. The world doesn't work that way, but a lot of people, especially in the western world think it does and t…

I waited to respond to stay away from the people here who hate religion, as well as get sufficiently off the front page as not to derail the general antivirus discussion.

Karma is simply that: action. Physical actions are just like how we accept Newton's Laws of motion as science (in Cartesian, non-relatavistic, non-high-gravity). It can be tested to a high degree of certainty, and therefore requires heavy proof to overcome.

However the distinction with karma is application of Newton's laws to also human behavior. That includes equal and opposite reactions to emotions, thoughts, and efforts. Those who followed Hinduism accepted this idea as Karma. Wiccans know this as the Wiccan Rede and the threefold rule. LaVeyan Satanism's "Rules of the Earth" have some sembelance of 'do no harm to innocents'. Even Jews discuss this very topic with the positive form in Leviticus 19:18, whilst not discussing the basis for it (it's usual for Abrahamic religions to give commandments).

I think every religion has developed a wording of the same principal of Karma, but with slightly different wordings due to language and culture.

Most seem to get the idea of inertia. People tend to go the direction they were already headed towards, even if it is ruin. I've seen this time and again with people. It doesn't matter if you tell them: something with as much force has to get in their way. And most people get reciprocity, or "you get what you put out". Seems awfully similar to "For Every Action, there is an equal and opposite Reaction".

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#56

Post by jimbobimbo »

beagle3 wrote: post #53
jimbobimbo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UAC prompts for a password, not a clickthrough.

Only if you have a password set up. about half the systems I interact with do not, and the UAC is just a click through on them.

Fair enough. This is being more or less mitigated by "file reputation" system though. It's pretty effective preventing user from accidentally running a suspicious file. This, and browser that sets the flag "downloaded from internet" on executable and ZIP files.

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#57

Post by garryt »

Dozens of antivirus programs exist, with varying prices and different levels of effectiveness. Comodo Antivirus offers total PC protection for free, not some stripped down version of a paid product. You can easily scan any drive or file, get in-depth reports on viral activity and detect suspicious files, with our user-friendly interface.

Comodo Antivirus has been built with intelligence: it recognizes typical viral behavior. Antivirus, upon detecting a suspicious file that could be a virus, will immediately place that file in "Antivirus Jail": the file is blocked, awaiting trial. If it's a viral invader, delete it. Comodo Antivirus also includes a mechanism for user to submit any files look suspicious to the Safe List and get immediate feedback on possibly viral files from our security experts and other PC-users. http://antivirus.comodo.com/

Re: Antivirus Makers Struggle to Adapt

#58

Post by illuminate »

lucian303 wrote: post #50
DanBC wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the coyness? What is that better software? Some people might have weird definitions of "better", so it might also be handy to say why that software is better.

Exactly for that reason.

I wouldn't bother if you're just going to be cryptic.
Post reply on HN