when was the last time anyone found a real live virus ?

1% of what? Of "the threats"? I think that pretty much drives home the fact you have no idea what you're talking about and are just plucking figures out of thin air in the mistaken belief that it will somehow lend any credence to your make-believe hocus-pocus. You need to look out of your cocoon every now and then, and realize that it doesn't represent the rest of the world.

 

Numbers in internet infections terms are meaningless... No one can provide true numbers...

What I do know, is that I probably see less than 100th of a % of infections in my locality alone during service visits, and that practically each, and every system I see in person, I find some type of malware in it.

Now when it comes to internet business this infection rate is even worse. Now me being the little insignificant twirp that I am, how then can one justify this experience? I would love to see the response from other consultant who like me work the field and the internet?
What do they see instead of what anti virus companies are telling us?

I would bet that the numbers would be substantially different if only anecdotal...

 

Your argument is not clear to me. Are you saying that it is random to a large extent whether malware invades? And if that is what you are saying, do use use an AV?

 

Hermescomputers, you apparently make money for cleaning computers of viruses.

What kind of licenses do you have for the software that you use? Or do you simply reformat these computers or have other methods. I believe these security vendors don't like if you use their free tools or basic home licenses/1 user licenses to make profit.

I'm not an expert but just like to know how this virus cleaning business works.

 

I own and operate a technical support corporation, we provide services from system maintenance to security services... Cleaning virus is a small part of it.
Go to my web site all the information you need is there it all speaks for itself...

 

The numbers are necessarily "meaningless" if they cannot confirm the premise that there is mass infection. I say and have said many times before in this forum, that the emperor has no clothes. I contend that there is no proof of mass infection, and from a logic standpoint, the burden of proof is on those positing mass infection. You admit it cannot be proven, and I say- that is correct.

 

As well as some others, your common sense has rubbed off on me

I think that was Mrkvonic??

Well, that is a rather serious statement to make There are positive and negative things said about all kinds of products in this forum made by all kinds of members. There are fanboyz as well, but that's par for the course. “Hidden promoters”? Well, I don't know about that.

Good questions! Just telling people they see infected machines and posting all kinds of screenshots only proves people do get viruses. It does nothing to explain the more important reasons of “how” it happened.

 

What I'm saying is that malware infections happen(what I think)over 90% because of human error or simply being careless and all these software can not fix that, perhaps only reduce the percentages.

.. and I use Dr.Web

 

Who speaks of mass infections? Not me?
I said I "See" these and state the facts of my own empirical experience in the field nothing more. Only many have attacked my experience openly.

I state this again. There is a real and present threat of virus, trojan, rootkit, and malware.... Otherwise how would my experiences be explained, and how could one justify the existence of so many security software labs, anti malware and anti spyware + anti virus + software firewall + hardware/software encryption and security gateway developers and the likes of secunia vulnerability labs or the SANS institutes, and so on...

There must be some type of validation in all this or Am I the only madman who believes in infections? Perhaps I should top op on some of your favourite medications

 

I completely agree on the human error part. I have used computers since 1970, and PCs since 1980. I have never, ever had a virus, etc. Part of the reason is that I am not careless, and to a very minor extent, the AVs I have used over the years.

But, I still contend that that the actual percentage of malware infection is much smaller than the majority of people believe. The 1% threat is still worth protecting against (see what I use below) if only because an Acronis restore takes enough time to make me want to minimize the chances of something trashing my machine.

 

Read what I wrote. I did not say there are not infections, I said mass infections. If you think you are a madman....

 

Minor observation: if the AV did something, you did "get a virus", and if you never had a virus, your AV did nothing.

 

Just read Wired Magazine February 08 edition page 058
Titled:
Hawker Media: Advertisers paid me to blog about them. Is that so wrong?

Then give it some thoughts... and re read the forum then talk to me again.

 

"I always say if you have no confidential data in your computer, you generally don't need an anti-virus tool. What harm can be done to your PC if there's nothing to spoil? Oh, well, it may grow a bit slower. But if this doesn't hamper your work, you may as well forget all about it. If you only use your computer for playing games, should you really waste money on anti-virus software? But if you think of all those passwords, an anti-virus tool may come handy, after all. Besides, your computer may be turned into a zombie for spamming, etc. It's the same way with a person's health: if you are fit and strong, you will not want to start taking pills. But you will most likely take vitamins to stay healthy. For an end user, anti-virus software is a kind of such “vitamin”."

"The users are scared. They are constantly threatened with viruses, other dangers, and innumerable Trojan worms trying hard to steal their data. This atmosphere is created by some anti-virus vendors in the first place. It's like the situation with the birds' flu: some say a pandemia is inevitable, and we all will die. Horrific, isn't it? Some people give way to panic but others stay cool, hoping it isn't as bad as that, after all. Keeping the users scared and persuading them that only your product can protect him against any trouble is a very clever idea. A person will buy your anti-virus software, although he may never catch a virus at all and never know how efficiently your product works."

-Igor Daniloff

http://company.drweb.com/press/igor daniloff cnews interview may 2006/

 

I thought Igor Daniloff is a professional, and I certainly expected better of him than this crap.

 

Sure, there may be a few promoters here and elsewhere from time-to-time, I'll give you that, but in no way should anyone with basic common sense allow them to influence their software purchasing decisions. They are usually quite obvious and stick out like sore thumbs.

 

I agree.

 

Well, what did you expect then?

 

I think I have met too many people over the years who refused to pay for security software (before there where so many free ones) and this has impressed on me that no matter what the risks one will ensure they care not for themselves or for the impact they will have on others...

Just think of those who play Russian roulette or shoot dope with dirty needles...
Regardless of the immense personal risks some will insist on doing whatever harmful behavior they chose, and they will defend their position no mater what!

Just human nature I guess.

 

It's a shame that common sense cannot be bought or isn't available as a free service.

 

Daniloff (like myself) is saying the emperor has no clothes. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. What would be your definition of better?

 

No kidding!

By the way Great Product Cure-it! Love it!
It was a stroke of genius to create a stand alone av that works that doesn't need to be installed!
I am certain it must have helped a lot of helpless people from those non existent infections, the world over

 

Common sense, meaning what most people think, is very much available. The problem is that very often what is commonly believe is wrong.

Thought the Igor reference was interesting - especially "A person will buy your anti-virus software, although he may never catch a virus at all and never know how efficiently your product works."

How often have people made the claim that they have been virus free because they run XYZ ? and at the same time Hermescomputers is able to report countless cases of users with multiple layers of protection still managing to get infected.

Common sense I'm afraid is very much like one persons terrorist being someone else's freedom fighter.

 

See, I would not be making much out of it, if these users with multiple layers where only infected with 1 virus...
NO what I see is multiple infections, as in more than one virus and not simply one virus infecting multiple files....
Often, Trojans, and rootkits and spyware with browser highjacks all at the same time. All on system with top AV's and AS. + firewall!
That is what turns my crank, and makes me respond here.

How does one use common sense to defend against this?

 

Hello,

Which only points to the fact that if you are going to be infected, you might as well do it with style. Why waste money on security apps if you're going to misuse them?

Common sense, well common sense is also the choice of OS. And it could be a licensing procedure that the world of computers lacks.

People who get infected lack something far more profound that firewall, anti-virus etc. And I know these people - 90% of all who work with me.

The answer: it's simple, but I won't tell it. People will accuse me of communism.

The question - can it be as simple as that? Well, yes it can.

And of course, if you want some fine tuning, then a set of principles, one for each finger on your left hand and you're set. The living proof are people who abide by my principles, and they enjoy games online, email, porn, anything.

Mrk