PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim
  • Start date Start date
Furthermore...

Does running Vista make you feel safe from malware? (ZDNet)

Another day, another report casts doubt on Vista's immunity to
malware. Do you
feel safer running Vista?
"PC Tools maintain that Vista is not immune from online threats.
Further
research and analysis has confirmed
our contention that additional third-party protection is absolutely
necessary
for all Windows Vista users" said...

5/20/2008 9:42 AM
Read more | Open in browser

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1897


Notes... "Duh"... No one who ever made a computer disk operating
system said it
could operate without conventional
malware shareware softwares - except maybe the clowns about Apple/Mac
and Linux
OS. The term "third-party protection"
means antivirus and antispyware shareware programs. Gee, I can not
remember
getting a new computer running Windows
without a Norton Antivirus free 30 day trial in it, which means even
our
computer manufacturers (Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, etc)
believe this already like going back at least to my first in year
2001. Enough
of this spin city already - BUT - this article has some
good information bits in it about Vista OS.

The point of my comments is who ever said Vista OS could operate
without ever
getting infected with malware ? So like this means
what is this author's point of reference for the story ? Oh well.....
there you
are. This was a bit immature of a statement. Really !

On May 20, 4:06 pm, Gerald309BCPCNet <gerald...@bluecollarpc.net>
wrote:
> More from PCTools about Vista Security ...... Article:
> ---cut---<
 
Shenan Stanley wrote:
>
> You want someone to post URLs to places to get infested from? No...?
>
> Vundo sucks - hunt that one down.
>
> I have found - while cleaning up machines - you have better luck
> cleaning them with tools like SuperAntiSpyware, Spybot Search and
> Destroy, SmitFraud, MultiAV, etc *if* you do it in Safe Mode. This
> prevented them from loading at startup and the deletion of the
> registry keys and dlss and registry files it applies doesn't happen -
> allowing the tools to do their work.
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP

You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low risk level:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2004-112111-3912-99

Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years old, like these:

http://www.computing.net/answers/security/trojanvundo-virus-unable-repair/16663.html
http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vundo_Rootkit_Detection_and_Removal_Procedure
http://forums.techguy.org/malware-removal-hijackthis-logs/406823-solved-trojan-vundo-virus.html
http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?ID=42097

When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation with all latest updates etc?
 
Dave wrote:
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>>
>> You want someone to post URLs to places to get infested from? No...?
>> Vundo sucks - hunt that one down.
>>
>> I have found - while cleaning up machines - you have better luck
>> cleaning them with tools like SuperAntiSpyware, Spybot Search and
>> Destroy, SmitFraud, MultiAV, etc *if* you do it in Safe Mode. This
>> prevented them from loading at startup and the deletion of the
>> registry keys and dlss and registry files it applies doesn't
>> happen - allowing the tools to do their work.
>> --
>> Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>
> You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low
> risk level:
> http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2004-112111-3912-99
>
> Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years
> old, like these:
> http://www.computing.net/answers/security/trojanvundo-virus-unable-repair/16663.html
> http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vundo_Rootkit_Detection_and_Removal_Procedure
> http://forums.techguy.org/malware-removal-hijackthis-logs/406823-solved-trojan-vundo-virus.html
> http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?ID=42097
>
> When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista
> installation with all latest updates etc?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=vundo+vista+2008

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>> You want someone to post URLs to places to get infested from? No...?
>>> Vundo sucks - hunt that one down.
>>>
>>> I have found - while cleaning up machines - you have better luck
>>> cleaning them with tools like SuperAntiSpyware, Spybot Search and
>>> Destroy, SmitFraud, MultiAV, etc *if* you do it in Safe Mode. This
>>> prevented them from loading at startup and the deletion of the
>>> registry keys and dlss and registry files it applies doesn't
>>> happen - allowing the tools to do their work.
>>> --
>>> Shenan Stanley
>>> MS-MVP
>>
>> You say Vundo 'sucks' , but according to Symantec it has a very low
>> risk level:
>> http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2004-112111-3912-99
>>
>> Most of the pages Google throws up about Vundo are at least 2 years
>> old, like these:
>> http://www.computing.net/answers/security/trojanvundo-virus-unable-repair/16663.html
>> http://wiki.castlecops.com/Talk:Vundo_Rootkit_Detection_and_Removal_Procedure
>> http://forums.techguy.org/malware-removal-hijackthis-logs/406823-solved-trojan-vundo-virus.html
>> http://ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/virus.aspx?ID=42097
>>
>> When did you last see this Vundo have any effect on a Vista
>> installation with all latest updates etc?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=vundo+vista+2008
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP

Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.

The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
will count as a hit.

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
succesfully infected with Vundo.

Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.

That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.
 
Dave wrote:
> Here we go again.
> You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some
> experience with this Vundo threat. I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo
> have any effect on a Vista
> installation.
> The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords -
> vundo vista 2008 Therefore every page Google finds with these three
> words on IN ANY
> ORDER or IN ANY POSITION will count as a hit.
>
> I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
> of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
> infected with Vundo.
> Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
> answering with a useless Google search.
> That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
> repeating the usual rumours.

Actually - no - it tells you I don't care about your search for ways to
"checkout [your] security settings". I never did. I was appalled that you
would ASK for someone to post links to sites that could infest a system -
that's it. No other motivation, no other reason for answering.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
Dave wrote:

> Here we go again.
> You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
> I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.
>
> The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
> Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
> will count as a hit.

<chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part of his
sig, would be more professional than to post results from a Google
general search than a Google Advanced search.


>
> I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
> succesfully infected with Vundo.

<chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search and do
your own? If you had you would have found entries such as the following:

http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more of the
links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave that chore
up to your level of interest on the subject.


>
> Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.
>
> That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.


.............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem solutions.

Just ma .02 cents worth.
 
propman wrote:
<snip>
> <chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part
> of his sig, would be more professional than to post results from a
> Google general search than a Google Advanced search.

Why?

>> I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
>> of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
>> infected with Vundo.
>
> <chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search
> and do your own? If you had you would have found entries such as
> the following:
> http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/
>
> This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more
> of the links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave
> that chore up to your level of interest on the subject.
>
>
>>
>> Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
>> answering with a useless Google search. That tells me you have no
>> knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
>> repeating the usual rumours.
>
>
> ............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
> your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
> participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem
> solutions.
> Just ma .02 cents worth.

I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
nothing to research - so I did none.

Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
conversation?

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> propman wrote:
> <snip>
>> <chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part
>> of his sig, would be more professional than to post results from a
>> Google general search than a Google Advanced search.
>
> Why?

Duh!


>
>>> I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
>>> of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
>>> infected with Vundo.
>> <chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search
>> and do your own? If you had you would have found entries such as
>> the following:
>> http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/
>>
>> This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more
>> of the links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave
>> that chore up to your level of interest on the subject.
>>
>>
>>> Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
>>> answering with a useless Google search. That tells me you have no
>>> knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
>>> repeating the usual rumours.
>>
>> ............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
>> your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
>> participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem
>> solutions.
>> Just ma .02 cents worth.
>
> I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
> nothing to research - so I did none.
>
> Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
> conversation?
>

Yeppers....more interested in a pissing contest

<plonk>
 
propman wrote:
> <plonk>

You use the phrases 'pissing contest' and <chuckle> and I am
non-professional?
That's ironic - at least.

If you are going to accuse someone of being non-professional - it helps to
act that way yourself.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee%238KGruIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> jim wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Then again, an MS-MVPs would have more to gain by shooting the
>> messenger of this topic than by discussing it rationally, wouldn't
>> they?
>
> Let me address this seperately...
>
> I do not care if Microsoft survives as a business past this second. They
> could fade into oblivion for all I care. was granted the award because I
> happen to help people in a Microsoft newsgroup. There is nothing
> nefarious behind it nor does it keep me from saying anything I desire.
> Microsoft sucks in a lot of things they do - and I express this whenever I
> feel the need.
>
> I thought I discussed things quite rationally. I would be interested in
> you pointing out where my point-counterpoint approach was irrational if
> you feel that way.

You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
less-than -honest manner ("Most percentages/statistics are made up to
benefit those making up the numbers. When confronted, it is usually
difficult for those who made up the numbers to present concrete facts
backing them up and usually easy for someone else to bend/make up numbers of
their own to the contrary. This is especially true when dealing with things
that are difficult to quantify because of the lack of reliable numbers (like
the security of an OS versus an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSs
are and what other protections may already be in place that prevent the
supposed issues from ever even reaching the OS...))".

IMHO, this is irrational considering the number of firms and people (both in
and out of Microsoft's pocket) that would call them on this. To do what you
suggested is irrational from a business point of view - considering the
stink that would surround the company once exposed.

Then, you go on to attack me - insinuating that I (for some reason only
known to you) would post articles with a less-than-genuine reason into
particular newsgroups. This too is irrational. What would be the purpose?
And, what has that got to do with the current post? If the current post's
logic or facts are in error, please point those things out without diverting
to personal attacks upon the poster.

You gave a link that listed many many articles to which I have no connection
whatsoever. And, you have given no valid reason that a person would waste
his/her time posting false warnings to a newsgroup - much less a reason,
that you can back up factually, for me doing so.

Please stick to the topic at hand if you want a response. If you would like
to start a separate thread concerning my postings to the newsgroup, please
do so.

Remember, the topic is that PCTools reveals Vista to be less secure than
Windows 2000 (but more secure than XP).

Best regards,

jim
 
"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:MD0Zj.478$772.115@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
> Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
> Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
> less-than -honest manner

No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is "implied",
and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied anything of the
sort.
 
"Rojo Habe" <noem@iladdres.com> wrote in message
news:5AA7AF21-619F-4E2F-AD20-895D5C869CCD@microsoft.com...
>
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:MD0Zj.478$772.115@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
>> Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
>> Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in
>> a less-than -honest manner
>
> No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is
> "implied", and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied
> anything of the sort.

So, did you not read....

"Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up the
numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This is
especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
ever even reaching the OS...)"

...in his post, or did you just prefer to ignore it?

jim
 
"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:I0nZj.13913$hv2.4310@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>

> So, did you not read....
>
> "Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
> numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up
> the
> numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
> someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This
> is
> especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
> because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
> an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
> protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
> ever even reaching the OS...)"
>
> ...in his post, or did you just prefer to ignore it?
>
> jim
>
>

There's nothing there to imply anybody's being "less than honest". They're
just doing what all businesses do and interpreting stats to suit their own
ends.
 
MS claimed vista would be faster, more reliable/stable, easier to work with, graphical enhanced, wider driver support, etc..I wouldn't believe anything that comes from the people who were the very reason why I bought Vista in the first place, because of their convincing lies..


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
 
Back
Top