Posted on 11/03/2009 9:35:44 PM PST by Gomez
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.
User Account Control did block one sample; however, its failure to block anything else just reinforces my warning prior to the Windows 7 launch that UAC's default configuration is not effective at protecting a PC from modern malware.
Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7. Microsoft, in the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report released yesterday, stated that "The infection rate of Windows Vista SP1 was 61.9 percent less than that of Windows XP SP3."
But let's not get complacent. Microsoft seems to be saying that Vista is the least ugly baby in its family. You can be sure the next report will highlight its even less ugly younger sibling, Windows 7.
Why do I say this? As of October 31st www.netmarketshare.com states that Windows Vista has a 19% market share against Windows XP's 70.5% and Windows 7's 2%. Approximately 1 in 5 Windows users is using either Vista or Windows 7. These users often have newer computers, automatic patching, and firewalls and anti-virus software in place.
With millions of hosts still infected with Conficker, ZBot and Bredo, it is obvious a lot of unprotected machines are still out there, and it is no surprise that most of those are XP.
As the chart above shows, Windows 7 users need not feel left out. They can still participate in the ZBot botnet with a side of fake anti-virus. Windows 7 is no cure for the virus blues, so be sure to bring your protection when you boot up.
"This one time - at band camp!"
She's hot. Send me some... :^O
Hey! You and me ought to start a club or something. Firewall only here too. Sneaking up on two years of this setup. No infections, no malware, no nuttin'.
Ping.
Then use a light-weight anti-virus package like Eset's Nod32.
Malware is a fact of life and you have to be proactive in defending yourself. Windows 7, if setup properly, will handle malware as good as any OS, including Apple's.
I defended myself proactively by buying a machine with Unix OS on it. That is, I got a Mac. . . .
I prefer Kaspersky piggy backed with Malwarebytes.
I thought that's what OS are *supposed* to do. Run programs. Our job... to know, or at least enlist the help of antivirus software, to know which programs are safe and which are not.
We're using Avast, and I've seen no performance loss with it, but I've used others including Macafee that sure did.
Errr.. Avira. Not sure why it came out of my fingers as Avast.. ;~)
Was Windows (haha) Defender and firewall running? Or how about the really scary warning that your computer may not be safe, turn on Windows Update to protect it. LOLOLOL
Slightly Off Topic:
I think an OS manufacturer should make their products safe for us. These days, it’s a given that you will run across a virus or malware, or be attacked by some method, such as a trojan.
I use AVG, because it’s good, and it’s free, which falls in line with my opinion. I paid for my PC when I bought it. I paid for the OS, also, when I bought it from Microsoft or as a whole package from the OEM. I should NOT need to keep paying a “property tax”, or a “lease fee” each year, as in a subscription. I have 7 machines that I keep running, 7*60=$420.00 a year on top of the original purchase price. BS.
BTW, am I the only one that noticed that most attacks and virus’ come from overseas? And most A?V vendors are also overseas? Hmmmm!
Mac and Linux distros are of the same opinion that I am. That is, you should be safe, under most normal usages of your machine, without buying something else to protect you.
Microsoft has been leaning towards my opinion as of late. They started with defender, made some more acquisitions, and then rolled out One Care, which wasn’t good, and was a huge resource hog, as well as, it may be a snoopware application, itself.
Now, One Care is dead, a blessing. MS has rolled out “Security Essentials”. I installed it on an XP box, and it seems to be ok. At least it doesn’t use an inordinate amount of resources to operate. Next, I will install it on my Windows7 machine, and live with it for awhile, to see if it gives up any strange behavior, or of I get infected on a crackload site. haha
There’s rarely a day that goes by that we don’t have a call to clean malware off of a Mac.
Your perception of Mac’s is about two years outdated.
The more popular Mac’s get the more attention they will attract from hackers.
The Cult of Mac is about to have an awakening.
I understand the sentiment, but not everything is “bought and paid for” forever. Antivirus is not a one-time expense but a process and you’re paying people to keep updating the system and continually doing new work to detect and stop new threats.
Like with a car— the car may be paid for, but that doesn’t mean you can expect oil changes for free forever.
Bravo Sierra
Not a very good analogy-LOL. More like when seat belts came out, the OEM’s didn’t make us buy them from a 3rd party, did they?
It’s the same thing. We’re buying cars without seat belts.
So, if MS makes an A/V and ships it in their product, and I don’t like it, I buy something else. That’s fair, that’s a consumer making a choice. The same thing applies if it doesn’t work, I can choose to buy a 3rd party app., and/or not to buy MS’s product. Again, that’s the market in action by consumers making choices.
But, given the dangers, and the competition (who are providing a safer OS environment), we are buying incomplete Operating Systems, like a car without seatbelts.
BTW, I installed Security Essentials on my Win(64) machine and it seems to run nicely. I set the priority to low, and took about 2 hours to scan a 250GB drive, and my Ramomometer (Memory Usage) was only at 38%. Not bad, now let’s see if I catch a nasty. hahaha
No. Antivirus just isn’t an Operating System function. It’s an application. Remember how much trouble MS got in for merely including a web browsing application with their OS?
Not to torture the weak analogy even further, but the OS isn’t the whole car. It’s just the chassis. There’s lots of things that don’t belong there like Word Processing apps, CAD programs, and yes... antivirus apps.
Antivirus is essentially a subscription. It is a service that is continually updating patterns and engines in order to protect against continually evolving threats. It’s not a buy-it-once kind of thing.
Yoda says, "And that is why you fail."
The question isn't, "Is anti-virus an application or a system function?" the question is "Why is an operating system so easy to infect that it requires us to have this conversation?"
Other operating systems don't seem to have this problem. There are millions of Unix web servers out there, millions of Macs and Linux PCs, yet somehow all it's always Windows that has thousands of active viruses.
There’s been plenty of Unix viruses in the world. No OS can ever be 100% secure from viruses, unless you made it so the user couldn’t do anything. Computers are just like buildings, any door that can be opened for legitimate means can be opened for illegitimate means, if the OS will let a user install and run software it will let them install and run malware. The only real question is how many secret processes an OS will let run, that’s really the danger point in Windows, there’s way too many times a Windows machine is running code from god knows where without the user having any idea or buy in.
Oh, we could take this to the extremes of naming every part that comes on the car, and every line of code that comes in an OS, and each of us coming up with an analogy to suit our argument. Fun, but, let’s not.
I believe I’m correct as evidenced by MS spending lots of money and delivering security solutions for free, whether it’s bundled or not.
You believe you’re correct because you like buying seat belts for your 2010 Corvette. LOL
I agree to disagree. Isn’t America great? ;)
Oh yes they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.