Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Security

New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image 258

An anonymous reader recommends a Computerworld article on a new report from Australian security vendor PC Tools. The company released figures on malware detection by its ThreatFire product, and in its user base 27% of Vista machines were compromised by at least one instance of malware. From the article: "In total, Vista suffered 121,380 instances of malware from its 190,000 user base, a rate of malware detection per system [that] is proportionally lower than that of XP, which saw 1,319,144 malware infections from a user base of 1,297,828 machines, but it indicates a problem that is worse than Microsoft has been admitting to." Microsoft hasn't responded yet to this report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image

Comments Filter:
  • by J_DarkElf ( 602111 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @05:51AM (#23472842) Journal
    Malware is not defined anywhere in the article. I know from experience that some "malware" scanners tend to mark even cookies (such as Doubleclick's) as malware, which will appear on any computer.
    I would also like to see how many of these "infected" computers had UAC and automated updates turned off.

    Looks like just another Vista bashing article (so it will no doubt be really popular here).
    • by patio11 ( 857072 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @05:53AM (#23472852)
      After all, the survey missed classifying Vista as malware -- how accurate could it possibly be?
    • by Dwedit ( 232252 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:04AM (#23472906) Homepage
      How about Wild Tangent bundled games that come with many PCs? Those trip up the spyware detectors too.
      • by setagllib ( 753300 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:39AM (#23473108)
        Because Wild Tangent is spyware.
        • by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:24AM (#23473310)
          Spyware that's hard to defend against. Trojan-style malware doesn't need security flaws to enter the system, thus Vista's new security features won't help much against it.
          • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @08:47AM (#23473910) Journal
            If these games are spyware and are bundled with the computer, then your computer itself is malware.

            Computing must be based on trust unless you have your own chip factory, and even then you have to trust your employees.

            If you buy a Dell with Linux on it, Dell can preinstall any rootkits they want and there's no way anyone could find them. You would have to boot from a CD or floppy and repartition the drives and reinstall the OS. Hell, they could install a hardware rootkit and even that wouldn't work.

            I'm glad I build my own PCs. I'm going back to vaccuum tubes. Where's my tinfoil hat?
          • by Necrobruiser ( 611198 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:19AM (#23475114)

            ...Vista's new security features won't help much against it.

            Why is it that only malware writers can write software that is Vista compatible?
          • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @01:57PM (#23479128)

            Trojan-style malware doesn't need security flaws to enter the system, thus Vista's new security features won't help much against it.

            Actually, I got Vista specificaly to stop that kind of malware, and its worked like a champ.

            See, I'm generally sharp enough not to put malware on my own system. The problem is that my kids use the computer while I'm at work, and they like to install "free" stuff they find online. Since you can't do a damn thing in XP w/o running as admin, there was no stopping this.

            With Vista UAC you can run as an unprivelged user. If a program wants to install something, it will prompt for the admin password. If its me and I really want that install to happen, I enter the admin password and it proceeds as normal. If its one of my kids running, they call me at work begging for the password, and I tell them to go jump in a lake.
        • by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @09:22AM (#23474288)
          I think we all agree about that.

          But the point is, if HP puts it there when you buy the computer (and yes I'm calling out HP by name: my HP laptop had orders of magnitude more of that shit installed than any Dell I've ever bought), the user's not going to remove it unless they're pretty technical. And technical users probably aren't running this anti-spyware tool, anyway. So suddenly every single HP PC sold it marked as having spyware, giving their numbers a huge boost.

          Of course it complicates things, seeing as Wild Tangent is actually spyware. But you can't necessarily blame the user for it being on there, and you certainly can't blame Microsoft if their OEMs pre-load spyware on the machines. In this case, it would say absolutely nothing about Windows security, since the OEM purposefully bypassed the security to load it on.

          (Microsoft could try a campaign to get more control over what software is shipped with Windows computers, and then you could watch Slashdot go crazy about how evil they are. It's a no-win for them.)

          P.S. Why the hell is HP still in business? Their computers are loaded to the gills with so much crap that they take 3 hours to boot the first time (I wish that was an exaggeration!). And when you put in the Windows CD to restore a clean system, HP slipstreamed the crap on the Windows CD too! And these guys are selling more computers than Dell? Do customers just like abuse?
          • by D Ninja ( 825055 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @10:21AM (#23475146)

            Do customers just like abuse?
            No. The customers just don't know any better.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Sancho ( 17056 ) *

            (Microsoft could try a campaign to get more control over what software is shipped with Windows computers, and then you could watch Slashdot go crazy about how evil they are. It's a no-win for them.)

            Well, Slashdot's not a single entity with a single opinion. No matter what Microsoft does, there will probably be people on Slashdot that disagree with the decision.

            That said, Microsoft has a history of trying to prevent competition by restricting what can be installed by OEMs. Remember the Netscape debacle? So there's a very good reason to be concerned if they tried to do this again, even if there were good intentions.

            Ultimately, it's difficult to determine whether malware got onto the machine by the O

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by click2005 ( 921437 )
            and you certainly can't blame Microsoft if their OEMs pre-load spyware on the machines

            Why the hell not? As somebody else pointed out, MS was able to force OEMs not to install Netscape and other media players. Its in MS's best interests to stop OEMs adding crapware to PCs as it harms their image. They could easily force this by threatening to stop advantageous pricing for OEMs that do install bad software. I realise that most OEMs & system builders operate on very small margins to any extra money the
    • by Skrynesaver ( 994435 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:06AM (#23472922) Homepage

      Malware is not defined anywhere in the article.
      While incomplete it did say that:

      PC Tools has publicized details of some of the malware types it has found on Vista systems during its scans, including three pages of variants based on Trojan.Agent, a few of which were described as serious.
      Not a definition of what they classed as malware, but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?
      • by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:15AM (#23472956)
        He didn't say that they didn't find anything, he was merely wondering if there were any details as to what exactly they did find.

        He's entirely correct about the tracking cookie thing, every malware scanner I've used (apart from Windows Defender, I *think*) flags cookies as malware. My ex's new Vista laptop came with Norton pre-installed, and it flags a tracking cookie every time it runs (and only the cookie - so her laptop would possibly contribute to the report's number, despite being clean)
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Alpha232 ( 922118 )
        Next J_DarkElf will debate the page sized used, was it Letter, Legal, A4, Memo?
        • I'd like to know what about his comment you thought wasn't relevant to the issue. Care to elaborate?

          Different vendors describe malware in a variety of ways, so it would be useful to know which definition they're using here to get an accurate overview of what they're trying to say. After all, statistics without context are useless.
          • by Tim C ( 15259 )
            I didn't say that I didn't think his comment was relevant to the issue. I was merely responding to his closing remark:

            but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?

            I see nothing in the original comment that implies that the poster believes that nothing was found. As I read it, the original poster believes that the issue is being blown out of proportion, and that without more detail we can't tell whether or not this is the case. Given that malware tools do indeed flag some perfe
            • by LO0G ( 606364 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:24AM (#23473314)
              The big thing I found missing from the article is how the machine got infected.

              If I download and install the cool icons for my IM client and malware comes along for the ride, is it Vista's fault that it allowed me to install it?

              As far as I know, all MSFT has claimed is that Vista is more secure than XP, not that it is immune from malware.

              There's nothing that an OS vendor can do to protect the user from their own actions.
              • by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:40AM (#23473396)
                it is immune from malware

                This is key. Any OS which can run 3rd party code is vulnerable to malware. Whether the damage is restricted to the single running user or can damage anything the OS allows it to, software written for the express purpose of breaking something will work correctly given the right privileges.

                So it doesn't matter if you're on Mac, Windows, or Unix, if you run code that is intent on deleting something and you give it the right permissions, it will do it.

                There are various levels of protection you can offer here.

                0. Let the malicious code run wild without any permission barriers
                1. Run the malicious code as root
                2. Run the malicious code as current user
                3. Run the malicious code as special unprivileged user
                4. Run the malicious code for privileged APIs and stop the malicious code on unprivileged APIs
                5. Run the malicious code in a sandbox
                6. Run only "signed" code
                7. Do not run non-preinstalled software

                As the levels go higher, the more hassle it is for users to install new software. Obviously we don't want to go back to DOS and level 0. And we've seen what happens when we run with level 1 restrictions. Running code at level 2 is a possibility, but it also leaves the user open to localized damage, specifically damage to their own accounts and data.

                Microsoft decided that for their systems, a compromise between level 2 and level 1 was necessary. And in order to do anything to the system as a whole, UAC was implemented to request a means to elevate user privileges temporarily.

                It's an ugly, annoying dialog, but what is the alternative? If you (the general 'you') think that another system does this better, in what ways specifically do you feel the system provides an adequate amount of protection and flexibility?
                • "...Mac, Windows, or Unix..."

                  [nitpicking] Ahh, but Linux is impervious [/nitpicking]
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 )

                  Microsoft decided that for their systems, a compromise between level 2 and level 1 was necessary.

                  In addition, .NET contains Code-Access-Security (CAS) mechanisms that let you get all the way up to level 6.

                  4 : .NET APIs are marked with permissions, and .NET assemblies can declare which permissions they need to run. System policy can restrict which applications even get to run, and allow some applications to run with restricted function.

                  5 : A sandbox is slightly different but can be considered to be a special case of 4 (or a virtual machine, or however else you implement it). Again, .NET will allow you

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by DarthVain ( 724186 )
                Having Vista for about a year now, I just suffered my first security problem.

                Got a Trojan called Velemonde or something like that. Nasty bugger. Took hours to get rid of it (if I even did, popups stopped anyway).

                However I am pretty sure it wasn't vista's fault. A more likely scenario is that when I passed out from a hard nights drinking my idiot friends that crashed the night before decided to go on the internets to some dubious websites and download everything and then run everything.

                Am I going to go out a
      • Maybe that's because Vista doesn't come with a built-in antivirus, only antispyware (which doesn't catch trojans).

        I'm not really surprised, and can't really blame Vista either that much. AFAIK, it will put up UAC prompts by default to warn users opening e.g. malicious e-mail attachments (or hyperlinks via Live Messenger), but if they then say "Yes, OK, I approve", what more can it do? Vista on the other hand should allow users to start executables.
      • Not a definition of what they classed as malware, but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?

        Sounds like someone got royally F**KED.
    • by nozzo ( 851371 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:08AM (#23472934) Homepage
      Yeah this is an extremely valid point. My Vista PC had 100's of 'malware' items on, all were tracking cookies. So from that someone extrapolates Vista has poor security. sheesh.
      • by aliquis ( 678370 )
        Hint: They want to sell their antivirus/-malware tools to Vista users aswell. (Hey, with the current market coverage by Vista that may add up to TENS of licenses! ;))
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Self selection bias?

      How many of these machines were scanned only *because* an infection was already suspected or known?

    • by Dekortage ( 697532 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:54AM (#23473496) Homepage

      To quote TFA:

      "It is important to highlight that all systems used in the research pool were at the very least running PC Tool's ThreatFire and that because the technology is behavioral-based, the data refers to threats that actually executed and triggered our behavioral detection on the client machine", said PC Tools' CEO, Simon Clausen.

      I don't use ThreatFire, but "behavioral-based" and "threats that actually executed" doesn't sound like a cookie. They could mean it, but it doesn't sound like it.

  • PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:02AM (#23472896) Journal
    New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image

    Come again? Does anyone but Microsoft actually believe Vista has an "image" of better security?

    Vista has one and only one major security-impacting feature - The "Train users to always click yes" interface to privilege escalation. And I feel confident saying that very, very few of us consider that a "good" thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Let's say that the UAC is a mistake and users should be 1) prevented from installing programs blindly, 2) not informed when a program is attempting to run without authorization.

      How would you design a system that fulfilled the two items above while still allowing the flexibility to actually install programs when desired?
      • How would you design a system that fulfilled the two items above while still allowing the flexibility to actually install programs when desired?

        See OS X, most any desktop Linux or BSD distro for the answer. Of all the desktop OSes it's only the ones made by MicroSoft have this problem.
      • Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:31AM (#23473346)
        Users should be prevented from installing programs blindly - Full stop

        Users should be informed the program is trying to run as an admin and so has been killed

        Users should ask to install a program, be asked for admin password to continue and then go ahead without repeated warnings ....!

        Asking for permission to do something means the program was not installed properly (when installed it should request all permissions it will need), or should not be doing it

        Windows Vista does all the wrong things
            Prompts for permission on both installed and uninstalled programs repeatedly
            treats an install the same as running a program

        Linux/OSX are not perfect but seem to have got the balance more correct (mainly due to a legacy of doing the right thing and so not having to support user programs that assume full admin rights)

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          To take that idea a step further, how should scripts that rely on a runtime be restricted? Let's say Perl is installed, and it requests full system access at installation. When you run a script that erases the hard drive, should it automatically run at the Perl permission level? Or should it run at the user level without automatically gaining Perl's permission level? Or should a text file be considered "executable" and require installation as well?

          I agree that installed apps should not ever bring up the UAC
        • Windows Vista does all the wrong things
          - Prompts for permission on both installed and uninstalled programs repeatedly
          - treats an install the same as running a program

          That's actually quite inaccurate:

          The question is do you need admin creds to run the program / installer or not?
          - For most installers the answer will be "Yes".
          - For many programs (say office/notepad/firefox/cmd.exe) the answer will be "No"
          - For the same programs, the answer could sometimes be "Yes" (cmd.exe, firefox to install a plugin, etc.)

          Note that you won't get asked to elevate everytime you launch the app -- though you can configure it that way if you wish. The app needs to be coded correc

      • How would you design a system that [silently blocked unwanted software installations] while still allowing the flexibility to actually install programs when desired?

        By verifying that executables have been signed by the Windows Logo Program on every machine that doesn't have a current subscription to MSDN. Yes, this would force many ISVs with fewer than 10 employees to target Ubuntu and not Windows, but the makers of BREW phones, iPhone, and Xbox 360 have already accepted this collateral damage.


    • Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kalriath ( 849904 ) * on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:19AM (#23472990)

      Vista has one and only one major security-impacting feature - The "Train users to always click yes" interface to privilege escalation. And I feel confident saying that very, very few
      of us consider that a "good" thing.
      Get users on Linux, and we'll be seeing the "Train users to always click yes (or in CLI mode, prefix with "sudo") approach to privilege escalation"

      Wait, that sounds familiar. Oh, wow! Both my post and yours are virtually identical!

      Seriously, people bash UAC, but it's pretty much identical to sudo.
      • Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dhavleak ( 912889 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:07AM (#23473254)

        Seriously, people bash UAC, but it's pretty much identical to sudo.
        In fact, I can think of a scenario in which UAC is actually better than sudo:

        In a social engineering attack where you download some program (malware) and run it -- the malware could spoof a UAC prompt -- if you are foolish enough to click "Allow", well, nothing really happens because the program didn't get elevated privileges (since it was a fake UAC prompt). In the sudo case, the equivalent level of foolishness has you entering your password instead of merely clicking "Allow". Result is that the malware has your password now, so it's basically Game Over.

        Of course, this is probably a moot point because a better social engineering attack would actually do something causing a genuine UAC prompt (instead of bothering to spoof it). The level of foolishness required to click "Allow" is probably the same in both cases.

        I guess where UAC becomes valuable is when an attacker has managed to exploit a hole, to execute code remotely without requiring you to fall foul of a social engineering attack. This way you know you haven't done anything to deserve the UAC prompt that just popped up, so you know that you should click "Deny" here. This might still fail to protect users that have absolutely no clue, but honestly they shouldn't be running an admin account anyway (and hence should not be able to elevate a process).

      • Re:PR != Security (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:51AM (#23473466) Journal
        Seriously, people bash UAC, but it's pretty much identical to sudo.

        Key difference - Using sudo represents an active request by the user for privilege escalation. Telling UAC to continue approves apassive request that the user might not actually have made (or known they made). When enough of them pop up at random times, it conditions the user to just say okay to make it go away - By comparison, no one would ever just randomly sudo a command for the hell of it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jugalator ( 259273 )
          Indeed, but if we're comparing a Windows UI feature, we should perhaps compare it to a UI feature of a Linux desktop distribution, not command lines, because the command line is already widely regarded being a barrier of entry to the users Windows is geared for.

          And if doing this, the approach becomes virtually identical. Well, one difference being that I have to actually *enter* the password in e.g. Ubuntu if doing an "administrative task", while I don't have to do this and just click through under UAC if I
      • by aliquis ( 678370 )
        Nah, they wouldn't need to click yes, they would just login as root for convenience.

        IANAVU (I'am not a vista user), but I suspect that the difference of UAC and Sudo are that the Windows developers haven't cared earlier and therefor do all kinds of bad stuff because nothing have prevented them from doing so earlier, and therefor UAC bothers the users more so they get annoyed and start pressing yes for all (much as I suspect my sister does for her antivirus, antimalware and firewall I installed for her.)
    • The problem is that I can hardly see an OS forbidding you to do some stuff you want at home.

      Most users would complain. In a corporate setting that is totally different ...
    • Security PR (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 404 Clue Not Found ( 763556 ) * on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:03AM (#23473226)
      That's not fair. Vista security might not have a very good image on Slashdot -- I doubt any Microsoft product ever will -- but in actuality, there are improvements over XP. Vista has more than just UAC (which was made slightly less annoying in SP1, by the way):

      * IE runs in a sandbox by default
      * IE has anti-phishing filters on and ActiveX off by default
      * Windows Mail disables ActiveX and blocks executable attachments by default
      * An anti-spyware program, Windows Defender, is included
      * Windows Firewall was upgraded and now scans outgoing connections as well
      * BitLocker adds full-drive encryption
      * Parental Control allows other accounts to be locked down and monitored, either for children or guest users

      Wikipedia has a more extensive list: Security and Safety Features new to Windows Vista [wikipedia.org]

      Vista was overhyped and it failed to deliver everything Microsoft promised, but at least give it SOME credit where security is concerned. The first three features killed off some of the most common attack vectors of previous Windowses. Vista started with great ideas; it's the execution (lookin' at you, UAC) that made the final user experience intolerable. Hopefully, that'll be refined in future service packs.

      • Its only an improvement if the features work and are reliable and do not cause any other problems or side-effects.

      • I expect Twitter to come rushing out with one of his many sockpuppet accounts and attack you at any moment! How dare you cloud a perfectly good Vista bashing with a few facts! Shame on you!

        Vista isn't great and was overhyped, but it's not nearly as bad as most people here seem to think. I'd hazard that the loudest critics haven't even used it.
  • by hyperz69 ( 1226464 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:15AM (#23472960)
    Vista Had a Positive Security Image?
  • by Harold Halloway ( 1047486 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:27AM (#23473038)
    Why might "Australian security vendor PC Tools" claim this? Could they have a vested interest in saying this?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by FamineMonk ( 877465 )
      step 1: Start a support/news website.

      step 2: Publish story "OMG Malware!!1!"

      step 3: ????????

      step 4: Profit!
  • by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @06:38AM (#23473100)

    So a company that sells security software [pctools.com] puts out a press release to say that you still need to buy their software even if you run Vista. I can't think of a single ulterior motive that they might have to do this!

    How many of the anti-virus companies don't issue doom-and-gloom style press releases? It is just their way of drumming up business. I would rely on these figures as much as I would rely of Microsoft's "research" that might suggest that Vista is completely immune to any security issue. The truth lies somewhere in between - which shouldn't surprise anybody.

    And before anyone jumps down my throat, no Microsoft didn't says Vista was that perfect.

  • The only cracks is the armour are the users, them being the one's that say "Yes, this unsigned potentially dangerous piece of software that inexplicably wants admin rights to my machine can do whatever it wants."

    There's a difference between the prompts when the exes are signed or not, for example here - http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/docs/intro/autoit_on_vista.htm [autoitscript.com]
  • by FurtiveGlancer ( 1274746 ) <AdHocTechGuy.aol@com> on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:12AM (#23473270) Journal

    Instead of "obnoxious security" as highlighted by the apple commercial [apple.com], now we have "less effective than advertised obnoxious security that's still better than XP."

    Can we possibly bring ourselves to acknowledge that M$ actually brought about an improvement in PC security? It shouldn't hurt too much since it appears to be verifiable.

    • And lets face it, if the user runs it, can it be considered a security failure on the OS part?

      It's not Vista's fault that the user said 'Run SnowWhiteNailsDopey.scr.exe! Yes! Yes! Allow! Yes! I'm Sure! Yes! Yes! Don't Care That It's a Virus!'

      Lets face it, if Vista didn't allow this, Slashdot would be running stories about how Big Bad Microsoft doesn't let users run programs on their own computers, that DRM watches you pee, and so on.

    • .. since a lot less people run it than XP :-)

      Sorry - you left that door wide open :-). Having said that, there appears to be hope at last. I read an article somewhere where someone has taken the utter total heap of crud that Sony made of Vista on its laptops (the thing that caused me to nuke it as soon as I managed to find time) into something that actually made it work, especially after Service Pack 1. IMHO, anyone who uses a new MS OS in production before the first SP has been issued should be made to
  • huh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Peter_The_Linux_Nerd ( 1292510 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @07:30AM (#23473342)
    "New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image" -- Vista had a security image?
  • Solutions? (Score:5, Funny)

    by cluge ( 114877 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @08:00AM (#23473524) Homepage
    27% of Vista machines were compromised

    This is indeed troubling (notice position of tongue and cheek). How can we fix this? I propose a five step program

    5. Electro shock all users the click "install now" without thinking
    4. Remove the fingers of users that follow the links on penis enlargement spam
    3. Publicly flog all users that attempt to install that "special media player" to get to "free p0rn" from a any site in the former communist block.
    2. Revoke all credit card, debit card, home depot card and sears charge cards for those that purchase a fake Rolex based on an email they got
    1. Remove any and all computers from folks that say "My computers running slow, you know about computers, can you look at mine"


    PS - A more meaningful less painful solution would be an OS lock down - IE think a live image distro where the Hard Drive is only used to store user data. Every reboot takes you back to square one - a heavily locked down environment with basic abilities allowed, but little else.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      If you can identify when users click without thinking, why not just keep prompting them until you have identified that they thought about clicking?
  • Initially Vista was prone to security by obscurity. It is now however well researched by the makers of malware and it's business as usual.
  • Well (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've purposedly ran some shady programs, with antivirus disabled on Vista. No WAU prompt, nothing. Yet, my PC was infected and had processes running. It was even harder to clean out then simular virii in XP.
    Al these prompts and other crap, it's useless. It's just to "make you feel secure" and "annoy the hell out of you". Effectiveness is ZERO.
  • Vista and UAC .. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @08:10AM (#23473584)
    "Vista suffered 121,380 instances of malware"

    I thought Vista with UAC didn't get malware. Didn't Allchin say Vista didn't need [theinquirer.net] any anti-virus software.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      They're called cookies, not malware.

      Yes, Threatfire labels tracking cookies as malware, and yes, that means this story means nothing. I'm not fan of tracking cookies, but they're not a big deal to most people.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Threatfire considers tracking cookies, like the ones from Google (aka Doubleclick) to be a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 in terms of severity of malware. This is a junk article and really shouldn't have been posted.
  • I saw it coming (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kashgarinn ( 1036758 )
    ... a mile away.

    I'm a windows savvy user, and I've never had problems with viruses or malware, mostly because I know when to make sure what I'm about to run isn't malware.

    That means I know generally what's already in my computer, and when I'm about to install or run something new, I either know it's from a legitimate source, and thus don't worry about it, or I scan the file before using it.

    that's why I applaud things like the firefox virusscanner, it's actually combating the risk of infection at the point-o

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.