What is Digg?527 Comments
- xero9, on 11/05/2009, -51/+654Isn't this what AV software is for though?
I except it to be immune to known worms, but viruses? Really?
People jump at the chance to knock Windows any way they can - DeviantDragon, on 11/05/2009, -17/+486This just in! You should use an anti-virus program to avoid viruses!
- MacroDaemon, on 11/05/2009, -11/+454The far better question is how those viruses get there in the first place.
It's like saying that in 8 out of 10 cases, when you ***** on the carpet, it starts smelling. - py3a, on 11/05/2009, -7/+361That's not vulnerability, that's backward-compatibility.
- jazh, on 11/05/2009, -15/+275I didn't know Windows 7 was a virus-checker? Did you?!
- Kmo917, on 11/05/2009, -14/+224Wow, right out of box Windows 7 can defend itself against 30% of known modern viruses. Imagine with real anti-virus software, now that's some serious protection.
- christoast, on 11/05/2009, -9/+198Who gets viruses? Honestly. Some people need to learn to internet.
- BrBybee, on 11/05/2009, -19/+186Yes...get 10 Viruses written for OS X. Then test with a fresh install. I am sure at least 8 will succeed. Same for Linux.
These Viruses were written for windows. Of course they will work on Windows. Why would anyone write a virus that did not work? Windows has the largest market share therefor the largest amount of Viruses. This article is nothing but a troll to get hits on their page. - phpchris, on 11/05/2009, -10/+163UAC is NOT an anti virus. Whoever wrote this article purposely infected the system with viruses without having an AV installed, then blamed it on UAC?. If you download a virus, open it, UAC asks do you want to run it, if you click yes, It's entirely your fault not UAC.
- inactive, on 11/05/2009, -19/+166These articles are *****.
I can write a virus right now that pretty much ***** your system and I guarantee it will not register in any anti-virus app.
Anyone can do it - just open a c++ compiler and do your worst.
How the hell is windows supposed to predict what an app is doing? Computers follow instructions written for it. That's it. - FritoPendejo, on 11/05/2009, -10/+121It's what you would need if your operating system was worth writing viruses for.
- Sylocat, on 11/05/2009, -7/+110Just don't use Norton...
- Residents, on 11/05/2009, -4/+96Not surprising. I never assumed Windows was going to all of a sudden be immune to viruses.
- mousewarmer, on 11/05/2009, -0/+88I want my computer to give 110%
- drjekelmrhyde, on 11/05/2009, -2/+84As JonnyC from Fark pointed out 2 days ago
"So they completely ignored the message that says, "Windows 7 does not come with a virus scanner... please install one", and then claim there is something wrong when they then throw 10 viruses at it?" - rival138, on 11/05/2009, -13/+84 Use an antivirus, the new MS one does just fine. This article is BS, just trolling. I use win7 on my MacBook Pro and have absolutely no problems with viruses or anything else. Use your common sense when online and put a simple antivirus on the damn thing.
- TheSabre, on 11/05/2009, -8/+78Indeed. The author also completely missed the fact that Windows 7 Action Center fires a red flag in the notification area saying "Install an Anti-Virus tool" when you do a clean install.
Unfortunately, if Microsoft added Security Essentials in Windows, they'd just get sued by McAfee or Norton. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. - IKORKYI, on 11/05/2009, -18/+85I said it once, I'll say it again
I haven't had a virus on my xp/vista machines in 10 years. - funkyloki, on 11/05/2009, -8/+70Yes they do
http://www.pure-mac.com/virus.html - phpchris, on 11/05/2009, -6/+62By clicking yes and allowing the program to run, that's exactly what you're doing, giving it permission.
- gaymathman, on 11/05/2009, -3/+58It depends. If these viruses needed explicit user interaction to run (i.e. clicking on funnypicture.exe or something stupid like that) this is not a big deal at all. You can't really guard against stupidity. If these viruses can be run without interaction, then this is a big deal, although that is unlikely.
- Nitrodist88, on 11/05/2009, -1/+51To quote dwlovell on slashdot
"This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure. You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did. They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine. UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is. They did not try to do remote infection.
I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security. This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.
The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running."
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1429856&a ... - lnxfi, on 11/05/2009, -0/+45You don't be a dumbass! I want to see anna_kournikova_nude.jpg.exe!
- Mockylock, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4433% of the viruses THEY picked.. that THEY know are NEW and are tough to stop.
Viruses have been created for decades, so I'm sure that it stops 99.99% of all viruses that exist... just not the 8 that Sophos KNOWS has existing vulnerability problems. - FritoPendejo, on 11/05/2009, -6/+46An operating system with less than 5% market share would be your first target? I suppose if you were a terrorist you would fly an ultralight airplane into a studio apartment.
- iZealot, on 11/05/2009, -1/+38 Sophos is anti virus software company! Wonder why it sounds biased... because it is.
By the we have Sophos deployed at work and it is a resource hogging glitch ridden POS. Great if you want to clamp down on security beyond a reasonable level and cause yourself some major headaches. - rolls20s, on 11/05/2009, -20/+56I don't think that this is a case of Sophos "jumping at the chance to criticize windows." Windows keeps them in business.
AV software is a poor fix for a larger problem, namely the fact that the OS doesn't properly handle permissions. Why do you need to waste system resources on A/V software when they could've programmed the OS to be more secure in the first place?
Regardless, it's obvious that Sophos' main worry is that because of Microsft's security claims about Windows 7, Joe-user will think that they won't bother buying A/V software (such as Sophos). So they're saying, "Hey! you still need us! Buy our product!" - IKORKYI, on 11/05/2009, -10/+46if you're a moron and can't help yourself from making stupid, nonsensical decisions in your browsing/downloading habits, you need to download and install this free software to clean up after your dumbassery:
http://free.avg.com/us-en/download - Trey9128, on 11/05/2009, -4/+39The Mac has ZERO virus protection.
- danwallace, on 11/05/2009, -7/+40Ditto. Common sense is your best antivirus.
- Sylocat, on 11/05/2009, -3/+35PEBKAC.
- MxM111, on 11/05/2009, -3/+33Just in! Only 1 out of 10 computers with Windows 7 survive the direct hit by bullet!
- Shoebox639, on 11/05/2009, -4/+33Hear about the guy who hacked OS X in 10 seconds?
- AlienMushroom, on 11/05/2009, -5/+33Windows not Bundled with Anti-Virus Software - Blasted by Critics for Vulnerabilities
Windows Bundled with Anti-Virus Software - Still Blasted by Critics & Sued by NY AG & EU for Monopoly
***** Sophos. - JackSchittt, on 11/05/2009, -10/+37That's because there are so few users of OS X and Linux that it's not worth the time necessary to try to write effective viruses for it.
If OS X or Linux had anywhere near the market share that Windows has, there would be far more viruses out there that would have the ability to infect them. - clippclop, on 11/05/2009, -4/+30Actually, UAC is SUPPOSED to protect a user space from running harmful applications without user or operating system permission. What i took from this article is that UAC only requested for permission for 1 of the 10 to run. That is a piss poor ratio.
It is meant to be a virus deterrent, but it obviously does its job poorly. When 7 out of 8 completely bypass UAC, what is the point of even having it turned on. The virus' were NOT given user permission to run, they bypassed it altogether. - R3publican, on 11/05/2009, -0/+26That's actually true. The level of intelligence required to get it installed is greater than that required to not click stupid ***** on the web.
- vfred, on 11/05/2009, -2/+26Come one, as bad as the UAC is (and it is), how many times a day do you install software? Of course it's frustrating when configuring a new system, but once completed, its fairly smooth.
I agree with most comments on the UAC, it needs to protect system files better but its not such a huge bother everyone seems to think it is. - lilbitmoreslyk, on 11/05/2009, -13/+36This is why you should have anti virus software. Don't trust Windows Defender or UAC to defend against all viruses. Majority of the viruses out there are for Windows, old and new. And with 7's compatibility for XP (not the integration mode) and Vista apps I don't think its surprising that majority of the viruses out there can infect Win 7.
- hyped, on 11/05/2009, -6/+29Congrats on finally getting backward compatibility right
- Lovecore, on 11/05/2009, -0/+22TL;DR
Looks like a nice wall of text though. With a link and the such, i'll dig you up just for that ;) - FritoPendejo, on 11/05/2009, -2/+23Yes, they are too scared. It has nothing to do with backwards compatibility. I supposed you have never worked in a corporate environment.
- spargonaut, on 11/05/2009, -0/+21its on that machine right over there....
in the closet.
unplugged.
behind the locked door.
with armed guards.
and attack monkeys. - geoboy, on 11/05/2009, -7/+27It can defend itself against 30% of viruses, but it's vulnerable to 80%?
- Nitrodist88, on 11/05/2009, -2/+22UAC is not anti-virus. It's purpose is to introduce a kind of user/administrator separation of the OS such that a user (which in this scheme the user is inherently untrusted to delete or add system files) is not able to delete all the files in an OS and affect the rest of the OS.
The UAC scheme (and linux user/administrator/root scheme) does nothing to prevent a user from running code that would ***** over their own files that they own.
Think of it this way: in linux, the root user owns the OS and most of the files while the user only owns their own directory in /home/user, so that if the user's account was compromised, everything in the user account could be deleted by the user without permission from the root account. However, it would need root's permission to really ***** over the entire OS. In this respect, it's good to have UAC, but even with UAC enacted, the virus could just delete all those favorite pictures that you have on your account and people would still be like "WTF, WHY DIDN'T UAC STOP MORE?". - havek23, on 11/05/2009, -10/+28so Windows 7's UAC blocks 33% more viruses as having UAC turned off? Misleading Digg title.
3 Easy Steps to Fight Viruses:
Install MSE
Turn UAC down low (cause it's annoying)
Don't be a dumbass - mason092, on 11/05/2009, -3/+21You mean idiots are vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses, right? Windows 7 isn't going to stop you from double clicking on a file with a virus.
- JedicodeWarrior, on 11/05/2009, -1/+19Let's see one OS that is immune to virus attacks.
- danwallace, on 11/05/2009, -13/+30But then I'd have to use OS X. I could just not use a computer at all and then I'd have 0 viruses.
- TrancePhreak, on 11/05/2009, -1/+18Digg vulnerable to 8 out of 10 dupes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 534 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is