Just how good is Microsoft's security?

MSE would catch most of this malware. Also, I used IE for years and never got infected. However, one time I was use Shareaza in XP and somehow my ZoneAlarm pro firewall got shut down....it was before most software makers used NDIS drivers...I think there was some sort of remote exploit, but I really don't know.

Saying that not using IE will make you less infected presents a false sense of security, especially for the types of people you mention.

 

Yes, so should Norton, KAV etc. I mean, most people that post hijack this logs since XP was out, did have an antivirus running, yet they got infected. MSE is not panacea either. Most malware will be caught by most AVs. Then there is the part that won't get caught on time. (like the part in zero day malware that you see in youtube bypassing famous AVs).

I ve plenty of friends who used and still use IE (specially 6 and 7) and often get infected. Apparently you and them don't go to the same places.

Just like i have run without AV for some months and haven't got infected. I also haven't got infected for years. That doesn't mean that i am representing the rest of the world.

Well various firewalls had stability issues specially in the past. It has happened to me too with other firewalls.

Unless you learn how you get infected , all advice from 3rd persons, is only false sense of security. MSE is also false sense of security if you THINK that if MSE doesn't flag it then it's 100% clean. Especially about IE 6, i ve managed to reduce drastically the infections on 1 friend who was convinced to run Opera instead of IE6. For the simple reason that Opera doesn't have activeX. In IE7,8 things are much better, but in comparison, IE6 is another story. (a google search will be enough).

And generally, IE is the first to be targeted by malware writers.

Personally i have never, ever got infected while browsing with FF or Opera, while i have back in my first internet days, through good old IE6.

 

IE usage was so high that using it almost meant you were going to get an infection of some kind if you did not know something. Firefox has a pretty healthy chunk of the browser market now, so is the increased security of IE completely due to reworking the code or the lack of dominance in this area? Has FF been experiencing more targeting due to its status?

This leaves Opera, still around, still fast and still only holding a small percent of the overall usage as a primary browser. Is Opera considered less targeted due to this?

I personally think that what is most used will become the most targeted. It has made sense in the past to tell novice users simply 'Do not use IE, use something else'. And in the past, this was a really easy first step that worked wonders. Today, it is not as effective as a one step solution with results.

Sul.

 

Diff tho between IE and FF. FF has addons that help you combat bad things happening to the browser. Also FF is normally used by the "smarter bunch" of the browsing community, Not to insult anyone that comment is simply directed at computer savoy people vs non savoy people. But most people that are not computer savoy just click IE because they know no better and frankly its very hard to teach a old dog new tricks. In all honesty I wonder if most maleware don't target FF or other browsers for that reason less of a chance of it being successful vs targeting something that any Joe blow is sure to have and may or may not know how to use.


This is a good spot where Microsoft and there free security comes into play. 1. Its free 2. Its by Microsoft (Even tho some people don't care for MS they are WELL known and people just figure hey its there OS maybe they can protect it best) 3. It's Massively simplified.

 

you don't like UAC prompts to allow something to run in admin mode, so you run as a limited user without UAC, then have to switch to admin mode for installations? How would UAC let you know what would happen if you install something? Its not a scanner.....

"Given the above, can you still get infected with malware, assuming when you get a UAC prompt (desktop dims) then user does not select yes, and she does not download and run anything from the web she does not know about - i.e. basic understanding on the part of the user."

System critical files cannot get infected by using UAC alone.

 

One word (actually two) - "social engineering". You said "she does not download and run anything from the web she does not know about". But what if she "think" she knows what she is running.

IE8 protected mode will prevent drive-by exploits from persisting on your machine. However, the buffer-overflow can still occur and the shell code can still "read" your private information.

 

Very interesting discussion. I am running Vista X86 behind a NAT router with Comodo Firewall and KAV and also using Open DNS. I have been clean for a very long time, so lately I decide to disable protection of KAV for a couple of days just to see the outcome. I also set my firewall mode to safe and the Defense+ to Clean PC modes. It has been two weeks and I haven't turned KAV on but just a couple of times to scan along with MBAM and I have not been infected. Im on the internet all the time and I use FF with ABP, NoScript, and skipscreen. Mind you I wasnt trying to get infected just going about like normal, but I can tell you that if I had done this before I started using Open DNS, I am positive I would have at least picked up some adware, spyware. maybe not but when I was using xp i was literally infected all the time or so it seems compared to now.