Windows 7 - Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses.

JMH · 11-04-2009

Quote:

Now that we in the northern hemisphere have had some time to digest the Windows 7 hype and settle in for the coming winter, we thought we would get some more hard data regarding Windows 7 security.
On October 22nd, we settled in at SophosLabs and loaded a full release copy of Windows 7 on a clean machine. We configured it to follow the system defaults for User Account Control (UAC) and did not load any anti-virus software.
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.

More -
Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses | Chester Wisniewski's Blog

logicearth · 11-05-2009

Lol I find that funny really. A virus/malware is an application, you install it it will do bad things. An OS cannot tell the difference between malware and a well behaved application because they are the same. Now this I could have accept if the samples tested were left to infect the machine without user intervention. But during the installing process they are given administrative rights which could have done anything to the machine. This does not make the security of the OS any less.

Zidane24 · 11-05-2009

Quote: Originally Posted by logicearth

Lol I find that funny really. A virus/malware is an application, you install it it will do bad things. An OS cannot tell the difference between malware and a well behaved application because they are the same. Now this I could have accept if the samples testes were left to infect the machine without user intervention. But during the installing process they are given administrative rights which could have done anything to the machine. This does not make the security of the OS any less.

I completely agree...The security of an OS is an independent variable of the security of a whole

Security of OS (40%) + Knowledge of User (60%) = Security of computer...

n0th1n9 · 11-05-2009

I am a little confused, did they have to click yes on the UAC prompt when installing the malware? or did it auto install and inffect the computer.

This doesn't acknowledge weather it is a failier in windows or just a user manully causeing the infection.

I am more concerned with the aspect of auto infecting my system.

H2SO4 · 11-05-2009

Quote: Originally Posted by Zidane24

Quote: Originally Posted by logicearth

Lol I find that funny really. A virus/malware is an application, you install it it will do bad things. An OS cannot tell the difference between malware and a well behaved application because they are the same. Now this I could have accept if the samples testes were left to infect the machine without user intervention. But during the installing process they are given administrative rights which could have done anything to the machine. This does not make the security of the OS any less.

I completely agree...The security of an OS is an independent variable of the security of a whole

Security of OS (40%) + Knowledge of User (60%) = Security of computer...

Thirded. Initially I suspected that Mr. Wisniewski may simply be suffering from a mild case of intellectual disability, seeing as he was "testing OS security" by executing malware in an admin context. Nice one Chester

However, further reading leads me to believe the article is more of an oblique cry for help, peppered with you-connect-the-dots marketing:

"Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."

"Windows 7 is no cure for the virus blues, so be sure to bring your protection when you boot up."

Site? www.sophos.com. Industry? They apparently make chandeliers and candelabras.

Zidane24 · 11-05-2009

Quote: Originally Posted by H2SO4

Quote: Originally Posted by Zidane24

Quote: Originally Posted by logicearth

Lol I find that funny really. A virus/malware is an application, you install it it will do bad things. An OS cannot tell the difference between malware and a well behaved application because they are the same. Now this I could have accept if the samples testes were left to infect the machine without user intervention. But during the installing process they are given administrative rights which could have done anything to the machine. This does not make the security of the OS any less.

I completely agree...The security of an OS is an independent variable of the security of a whole

Security of OS (40%) + Knowledge of User (60%) = Security of computer...

Thirded. Initially I suspected that Mr. Wisniewski may simply be suffering from a mild case of intellectual disability, seeing as he was "testing OS security" by executing malware in an admin context. Nice one Chester

However, further reading leads me to believe the article is more of an oblique cry for help, peppered with you-connect-the-dots marketing:

"Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."

"Windows 7 is no cure for the virus blues, so be sure to bring your protection when you boot up."

Site? www.sophos.com. Industry? They apparently make chandeliers and candelabras.

No offense to the OP but this thread just a waste of screen room

A chandelier maker commenting on the level of strength of a computer OS?
Does he more than just double-clicking an app?

jimbo45 · 11-05-2009

Hi there
What a totally 100% uninformative article.

It's 100% pure BOVINE SCATOLOGY.

Any OS is vulnerable to user commands (like running bad programs).

Would the writer of the article say Linux was a vulnerable system because a user can login as ROOT and delete every directory on the disk or a car was dangerous because you could rev it up to 140 km /hr and then deliberately run it against a solid concrete wall.

Pure xxxx.

I think this article deserves this month's merit award (screenshot enc).

Cheers
jimbo

Windows 7 - Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses.

Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses. problems?