Are we protected from...

[martindijk]

Hi all,

Just wandering if the following trojan has been implemented in the latest virus definitions:

QHosts-1 [McAfee], VBS.QHOSTS [CA]

For additional info see:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/trojan.qhosts.html

rgds,
Martin

[minacross]

I could not find it on the web site. Not on the "Virus Descriptions" or on the "Update info" ??? ???

[martindijk]

Hi minacross,

I know, couldn't find it either, this is quite a serious bugger ;)

rgds,
Martin

[StAnger]

This is not a virus IMO. And if you have ActiveX disabled, you are protected. ;)

[martindijk]

Hi StAnger,

Your right, it is not a virus, it is a trojan, as i mentioned earlier ;)

rgds,
Martin

[DolfTraanberg]

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=14547

[StAnger]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Martin vDijk link=board=39;threadid=14521;start=0#msg91655 date=1065257607]
Your right, it is not a virus, it is a trojan, as i mentioned earlier ;)
" }-

Even trojan is too much honour for this (very stupid) hijacker. And the last time I checked (and the reason I use) NOD32 is an AntiVirus.
IMO everything else it detects is a bonus and not something to demand or expect.

[testg]

But still I would like to be protected against something that everyone is being protected against.
If there is an activex bug that can download a trojan then I want to be protected against it since that's what I am paying for.

[sig]

Reportedly disabling ActiveX is not enough to defend against this exploit. Installing the October 3 MS patch update *should* protect against it, although the earlier MS patch for this vulnerability did not.

[Paul Wilders]

Ladies and gents,

Please let's centralize this issue; there's a thread about this over here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=14532;start=0).

No offense, but I'm closing this thread ;)

regards.

paul