# [poll] Do you have virus protection?



## indrora (May 21, 2008)

Well? do you?

I've been bitten recently by something i grabbed (legitly i might add) off of bittorrent so now i'm firing up AVG and ClamAV and all the guns are ablazing against a simple case of... WinAntiVirus... sweet jesus.


----------



## Eevee (May 21, 2008)

No.  In some ten years of running Windows without AV I never caught anything, and now I run Linux anyway.  Frankly, commercial antivirus products are the most relentless malware I've ever had to deal with.


----------



## indrora (May 21, 2008)

eh. I've become accustomed to AVG over the three years i've used it. and shit its saved my ass enough i've bought it instead of pirating it. Though one AV i have never liked is Comodo's Antivirus solution -- it bugs your to hell and gone. Honestly, i'm with you on the fact that that most commercial "antivirus" products are malware, there are a few that have saved my ass more than once. Webroot, AVG, ClamAV, all have saved me in some way or another.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 21, 2008)

I have Norton, but I've always suspected it don't do shit. I also have Yahoo anti-spy, and it's caught a couple Trojans that Norton didn't.


----------



## supercutefurri58 (May 21, 2008)

i used to run the old (very good) free-av one, before Avira bought it and ruined it for everybody.

never get viruses, tho i'm pretty sure i got trojaned into a botnet at some point and used for ddos lol good times


----------



## Tudd (May 21, 2008)

I hate to admit it but, McAfee has once saved my computer. I believe that was 7+ years ago though. Since then I've used AVG or nothing at all with no serious infections since.


----------



## Kitara (May 21, 2008)

I've had 2 computers crash and die from a virus so now I never go with out virus protection and backin gup my data. D:


----------



## pitonpeludo (May 21, 2008)

Spy Sweeper mostly with AntiVirus protection enabled, but I've occasionally used Norton AntiVirus and others. I don't like Norton, though, because it would scream at me when it wanted more money. Spy Sweeper does to, though in a more subtle way.

Anybody know of any safe, free anti-virus software that keeps pretty up to date?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (May 21, 2008)

Try AVG or Avast!. Both free.


----------



## net-cat (May 21, 2008)

On my Windows installs, I use the corporate McAfee I get through my school.

On others, not so much.


----------



## Zotec (May 21, 2008)

I use Avast, the virus scanner with a (sea) pirate theme... Sort of. Just turn off the dang "Virus Database Has Been Updated" sound.


----------



## Grimfang (May 22, 2008)

I usually have Avast on my computer, but I've been too lazy to put it back on since I reformatted. I never really get viruses anyway. Only ones I got in the past were from being stupid and trying to download cracks for programs and such. I don't download crap anymore.

I thin the blaster worm was the only thing I ever got that was beyond my control.


----------



## greg-the-fox (May 22, 2008)

Yes, it's called a mac XD
(in b4 "macfag")


----------



## Rayne (May 22, 2008)

Nope. Reformatted a few months ago and never bothered reinstalling AVG.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (May 22, 2008)

Yes, I have McAfee.


----------



## Kimmerset (May 22, 2008)

AVG, in most cases.


----------



## Aurali (May 22, 2008)

net-cat said:


> On my Windows installs, I use the corporate McAfee I get through my school.
> 
> On others, not so much.


Same, but with symantec



greg-the-fox said:


> Yes, it's called a mac XD
> (in b4 "macfag")



caareful now. Just cause you got a mac, don't mean it isn't virus prone. You just gotta look harder.. or be unlucky as fuck! XD


----------



## Jelly (May 22, 2008)

No. I don't get along with McAfee or Symantec, and I'll admit as a consumer I tend to go for the expensive stuff.

The first and last time I got a virus was the Monkey Virus in '94.


----------



## FrankTheWuffdrafox (May 22, 2008)

I have SpySweeper. I hope it dies.


----------



## Kimmerset (May 22, 2008)

greg-the-fox said:


> Yes, it's called a mac XD
> (in b4 "macfag")



I'm gonna write a Mac virus. Just for you.


----------



## indrora (May 22, 2008)

holy shit its a holy war on virus scanners
Spy Sweeper missed shitloads and bluescreened my ass.
Ad-Aware is making the machine die.
what i'm having problems with right now is DLL injection so i've moved COmodo Firewall onto High Alert

and for macs, i have the ultimate virus scanner:
	
	



```
sudo srm -pr /*
```
 :3 -- I dont mind macs but those who think macs = invincible, they have the same security vulnerabilities with Shared Objects as PCs


----------



## net-cat (May 22, 2008)

indrora said:


> and for macs, i have the ultimate virus scanner:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does -p do? (It's not in the man page.)

Also: In case anyone was entertaining the thought of running that "ultimate virus scanner," allow me to translate from UNIX to English:

Do the next action as administrator: delete everything in the filesystem while overwriting it with random data.


----------



## Eevee (May 22, 2008)

And this, boys and girls, is the single most fundamental weakness of UNIX systems in the hands of casual users, and yet their most powerful feature: "paste this into a shell".


----------



## indrora (May 22, 2008)

bah my bad its -fzvrm (the M is for a DoD level 7pass wipe :3)


----------



## yak (May 23, 2008)

No, I don't have antivirus protection on any of my Windows based PCs. 

I use a handfull of applications I need, don't really install anything new, and if I do, then only after I have tested it on a junk VMWare install of Windows. The only thing that I do have is a firewall which also is used to strip out ads from webpages.

If I do manage to catch a virus/trojan/malware once a blue moon, I know enough of/about windows system processes to identify the wrong one and remove it by hand. Failing that, I can simply restore the OS from a weekly system drive snapshot.

I cringe every time when I think about the overhead these 'system protector' apps have, and how large of a performance toll they take off my system.


----------



## Dyluck (May 23, 2008)

I've got AVG. It seems to be popular.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 23, 2008)

greg-the-fox said:


> Yes, it's called a mac XD
> (in b4 "macfag")



QFT!


----------



## Cmdr-A (May 23, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:


> I've got AVG. It seems to be popular.



What ^ said

And mine caught and deleted a few bad things that somehow got on there yesterday from this odd popup i got when I was on DA x.x


----------



## Tomtenizze (May 23, 2008)

I'm using Nod32, the only AV I know of that doesn't send you a couple of thousands popups and makes even the most powerful computer run slower then a 386. If I'm for some reason unable to use Nod, I'll go without an AV.


----------



## CyberFoxx (May 24, 2008)

ClamWin on my XP partition (Best part is that it doesn't have one of those resident scanners. Damned things always slow down a comp.) and ClamAV on my Linux boxes.


----------



## indrora (May 24, 2008)

yak said:


> No, I don't have antivirus protection on any of my Windows based PCs.
> 
> I use a handfull of applications I need, don't really install anything new, and if I do, then only after I have tested it on a junk VMWare install of Windows. The only thing that I do have is a firewall which also is used to strip out ads from webpages.
> 
> ...



I know enough about Smitfraud-C now i can remove it by hand with a few glances and some md5 hashes to confirm. but does that mean i know everything about it? nope. so i leave it to the experts. 

and do you use the stock process manager or do you extend yours in some way? i've tracked plenty of things down by looking at what modules are run.

And are you using a third party registry editor? because one step and BAM nobody has registry access unless you go around and manually fuck with the registry... because 
HKCR/exefile/shell/open/command/=c:\windows\spools.exe "%1 %*"
Is damned hard to track down. especially if spools.exe has a munged M$ signature and that CHANGES to match the Shell32 signature. (thats what i had... clever, isnt it?)
I found that with the help of RegAlyzer, ResHack, PEID and a few other ones. M$ builds most of their stuff with an M$ compiler with special identification. it shows.

oh and another thing: I've run several resident sheilds and the only one that remotely slowed my machine down was Webroot's (well, Sophos') -- the others that simply do a quickie regex heuristics based scan while keeping the library loaded into memory for fast access.


----------



## lilEmber (May 25, 2008)

AVG 8.0 Free Edition as well as Spybot just because they don't affect my pc in performance in any way and they do work so far have caught things and have prevented them so I will continue to use them and honestly Spybot is the best for registry and spyware protection and AVG is the best for anti Virus and bugged file protection by far.


----------



## E-mannor (May 25, 2008)

i have a mac, so it goes without saying i have never had anything of this sort, but i still have a good virus scanner and protector just because they came with the computer when i bought it.  but really even if they don't work and anything were to somehow happen the program "time machine" saves all of my stuff as an actual copy of the computer at any given moment on back up, so it is virtually impossible for any virus to do anything to me.


----------



## Armaetus (May 26, 2008)

Windows, yes.

Ubuntu Linux, no.

And what kind of moron would slap two AVs on their system? That's asking for false positives, conflicting reports and possible instability..just like using two firewalls.

I lol at Mabyn and pitonpeludo for choosing that option.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (May 26, 2008)

mrchris said:


> Windows, yes.
> 
> Ubuntu Linux, no.
> 
> ...


Nevermind that the second antivirus in such cases is usually one that's manually-run only, like how I have it.  No sense wasting precious cycles on two resident AVs.

Also, HAHAHAHAHAHA NORTON AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...

So anyway.

I'm seasoned enough that I don't need an antivirus program (unless I'm, say, browsing for warez perfectly legitimate programs `_`), but at the same time it never hurts to be careful, and it's not that difficult to disable AVG if I need to cut out what little overhead it gives.  So far the only thing AVG hasn't agreed with is Trillian, and even then the dispute's rather small - it just means a momentary pause on Trillian when I close an IM window, and even then I'm planning on moving to Pidgin anyway.


----------



## indrora (May 27, 2008)

Ceceil Felias said:


> I'm seasoned enough that I don't need an antivirus program (unless I'm, say, browsing for warez perfectly legitimate programs `_`),



*chortles* of course my bank balance is negative, whos isnt? *snicker*

As for moving to pidgin, beware that now you cant use the resizing textarea plugin with AVG as it causes problems. e-penis enlargement. ummm... entertainment :3


----------



## dietrc70 (May 27, 2008)

I've always hated antivirus software.  It seems to really slow the system down, and sometimes causes weird conflicts.

I consider antivirus software a necessary evil if you share your computer, though.


----------



## Plague-Angel (May 28, 2008)

Im using Bitdefender Internet Security V10
Its working very well.


----------



## lilEmber (May 28, 2008)

E-mannor said:


> i have a mac, so it goes without saying i have never had anything of this sort, but i still have a good virus scanner and protector just because they came with the computer when i bought it.  but really even if they don't work and anything were to somehow happen the program "time machine" saves all of my stuff as an actual copy of the computer at any given moment on back up, so it is virtually impossible for any virus to do anything to me.



Actually, Macs can get viruses some bugs target only mac and a lot of script errors and a few simple things such as replacing a core file because MAC can't defend against that on its own but because only like 3% of the world uses macs it might be rare to get one of these but they are not silly bugs they are the serious ones.

Also i see you think time machine keeps a actual backup there on your hard drive of the core files, actually it dose keep some things but it, like windows restore can only do so much if anything windows restore can do more for core but less for actual files like time-machine.

Your doing good by having a anti-viruses on there as well because you will never know what might happen.


----------



## WarMocK (May 29, 2008)

I wonder why NOBODY in this thread mentioned the possibility to use a virus scanner running under a different OS could be used to scan a corrupted installation on another partition...
If you caught something like Sasser, the best way to remove it is to use a hardened system featuring a virus scanner that is able to find the bug and wipe it off the computer. that's what I already did on a PC a few weeks ago when I visited a friend of mine. He had a few nasty bugs on his system he couldn't get rid off with his Windows Scanners. my Linux scanners effective wiped them out, and the problem was solved.
But the best virus protection still is the computer between your ears. With a proper config (like:"REAL women do not have EXE in their names", "8 inches are enough!" and "NO, my aunt doesn't live in Africa!"), almost 80 percent of all viruses don't have a chance. ;-)


----------



## Ishnuvalok (May 29, 2008)

I use Fsecure. Never gotten anything while it has been active.


----------



## indrora (May 30, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> I've always hated antivirus software.  It seems to really slow the system down, and sometimes causes weird conflicts.



I'd have to disagree. only once have i found a noticable slowdown and that was with Spy Sweeper. right now i'm servicing a 700mhz winxp home machine -- the only slow down was after i installed sp2. Note, when AVG and Spybot SnD both report 3400 infections, thats a bad sign. the machine is clean and active now. All forms of disk access are identical with and without on access scanner.


----------



## WarMocK (May 30, 2008)

indrora said:


> Note, when AVG and Spybot SnD both report 3400 infections, thats a bad sign.


LOL, if I had this message on my PC I think I'd deliver it the final blow with a 12-gauge and buy a new PC. xD
BTW: AVG and Spybot are a good combo imho. I use them both on my XP, and I really can't say that they slowed down my system or had false positives.


----------



## indrora (May 30, 2008)

i've had a few small false positives with AVG but never anything much more than word macros


----------



## Tycho (May 30, 2008)

I don't need antivirus any more, I have the power of Linux! :B


----------



## Project_X (May 30, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> I don't need antivirus any more, I have the power of Linux! :B



More like the rareity...lol...


----------



## dietrc70 (May 31, 2008)

indrora said:


> I'd have to disagree. only once have i found a noticable slowdown and that was with Spy Sweeper. right now i'm servicing a 700mhz winxp home machine -- the only slow down was after i installed sp2. Note, when AVG and Spybot SnD both report 3400 infections, thats a bad sign. the machine is clean and active now. All forms of disk access are identical with and without on access scanner.


 
Whoever owns that PC definitely needs AV software!

Maybe my workflow is just different.  I work with large collections of files frequently, so perhaps I notice the slower disk access more.  I did get my boss to spend thousands to get it for the entire office when we first started using the internet, and it was a good thing, because it caught viruses constantly.  That was because the employees were doing running anything in their mail folder that ended with EXE, though.


----------



## WarMocK (May 31, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> That was because the employees were doing running anything in their mail folder that ended with EXE, though.


Remember what Albert Einstein said:"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. But I'm not sure about the universe."


----------



## Ceceil Felias (May 31, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> I don't need antivirus any more, I have the power of Linux! :B


Bliss is waiting around the corner for you. Give it some love. <3


----------



## Eevee (Jun 1, 2008)

Ishnuvalok said:


> I use Fsecure. Never gotten anything while it has been active.


Several people have said this of their anti-virus software, which yields the question..  how would you know if it missed something?


----------



## dietrc70 (Jun 1, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Several people have said this of their anti-virus software, which yields the question.. how would you know if it missed something?


 
Some Borg-looking dude will show up on your screen and say something like:

"How are you gentlemen
All your file are belong to us"

More seriously, even if you have AV software I recommend getting Acronis True Image and making images of your boot drive regularly.  That can get you back up and running fast if your Windows installation is corrupted for any reason.


----------



## indrora (Jun 1, 2008)

dd -s=/dev/hda -t=/mnt/hdd/img_$DATE.img
dd -s=/mnt/hdd/img_oct3.2008.img -t=/dev/hda

thats cheaper than Acronis. and more reliable.


----------



## dietrc70 (Jun 2, 2008)

indrora said:


> dd -s=/dev/hda -t=/mnt/hdd/img_$DATE.img
> dd -s=/mnt/hdd/img_oct3.2008.img -t=/dev/hda
> 
> thats cheaper than Acronis. and more reliable.


 
Snob 

I did use Linux for servers when I was working in IT, but it just isn't an option for my own PC. There's too much software I use that is Windows only.;(


----------



## indrora (Jun 2, 2008)

you can use DD for windows in the same fashion just with different keywords like .\\disk0\


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 3, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> There's too much software I use that is Windows only.;(


Have you ever tried to run it with WINE? Most progs should work if they don't require D3D. In this case, you'd need Cedega.


----------



## Eevee (Jun 3, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> I did use Linux for servers when I was working in IT, but it just isn't an option for my own PC. There's too much software I use that is Windows only.;(


Such as?



WarMocK said:


> Have you ever tried to run it with WINE? Most progs should work if they don't require D3D. In this case, you'd need Cedega.


You don't need Cedega for Direct3D under Wine.  I wouldn't want to support them, anyway.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 3, 2008)

Eevee said:


> You don't need Cedega for Direct3D under Wine.


I mean Cedega instead of WINE. But according to the news about the status of WINE and Cedega, I think using Cedega would be riding a dead horse anyway. ;-)


----------



## Eevee (Jun 3, 2008)

Er, under Linux.  My bad.


----------



## Pi (Jun 4, 2008)

indrora said:


> dd -s=/dev/hda -t=/mnt/hdd/img_$DATE.img
> dd -s=/mnt/hdd/img_oct3.2008.img -t=/dev/hda
> 
> thats cheaper than Acronis. and more reliable.



What the hell whack version of dd are you running? the dd I know takes parameters like if=input of=output, not -s= anything.

Also, it's not dd_rescue, because -s means "seek".

(genuinely baffled)


----------



## nrr (Jun 4, 2008)

indrora said:


> dd -s=/dev/hda -t=/mnt/hdd/img_$DATE.img
> dd -s=/mnt/hdd/img_oct3.2008.img -t=/dev/hda
> 
> thats cheaper than Acronis. and more reliable.



What the fucking christ version of dd are you using?  Seriously, dude.


----------



## Koda (Jun 5, 2008)

Not at all. No firewall either. Only real protection on my computer is the surge protector XD

Reasons: I'm not a jackass and browse the net safely. IE, avoid visiting sites whos GTLDs are .de or .ws XD
I don't do torrents for software.
I don't do file sharing for software or even archives.
My network is behind a hardware firewall, to which I only let specific ports through, and even then, they're directed to a linux machine which I don't really care about.
I use a hosts file to block malware/ad sites.
I use !internet explorer or related software.

I used to work in Geek Squad and let me tell you, the shit they'd pull to get money from customers is incredible. OMG YOU NEED FIRE WALL, ANTI-SPYWARE, ANTI-VIRUS. I laughed every time I'd hear it and be like..." how bout I just install Firefox for you, no charge? Oh yeah, don't play with Limewire or goto myspace. You'll be good."

Seriously hated having to be a salesman and attach crap like that to customers computers.. I much preferred tuning them up, or getting viruses out.

Wouldn't it be more like...
dd if=/dev/hda1 | dd of=/mnt/hdb/backup.img
..
dd if=/mnt/hdb/backup.img | dd of=/dev/hda1 

?


----------



## indrora (Jun 6, 2008)

the dd would be
dd if=/dev/hda of=/mnt/hdb/backup_$DATE_`time`.img
and reverse of and if for restore


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 6, 2008)

indrora said:


> the dd would be
> dd if=/dev/hda of=/mnt/hdb/backup_$DATE_`time`.img
> and reverse of and if for restore


The naughty naughty dd command ... so powerful - and so destructive! }:->


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jun 6, 2008)

Nope, and just this night, I got rid of some viruses and malware and such as the simple routine it's become for me. =^.^=


----------



## greivousgit (Jun 6, 2008)

I have AVG and Norton. I have to say, if you want an anti-virus thn AVG is the best out, and it's free. Just download it


----------



## Eevee (Jun 6, 2008)

Koda said:


> Wouldn't it be more like...
> dd if=/dev/hda1 | dd of=/mnt/hdb/backup.img
> ..
> dd if=/mnt/hdb/backup.img | dd of=/dev/hda1
> ...


Why would you pipe dd to dd..?  You can specify both if and of at once.


----------



## Pi (Jun 6, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> The naughty naughty dd command ... so powerful - and so destructive! }:->



dd is no more and no less destructive than 'cat' combined with the shell's redirect operators. It's just as easy to shoot yourself in the foot using either.

It is slightly more powerful, but that's because it has options like conv=ucase, conv=noerror, conv=ebcdic.


----------



## Pi (Jun 6, 2008)

Koda said:


> Not at all. No firewall either. Only real protection on my computer is the surge protector XD
> 
> Reasons: I'm not a jackass and browse the net safely. IE, avoid visiting sites whos GTLDs are .de or .ws XD
> I don't do torrents for software.
> ...



Oh, all that will help when some wormed machine that your friend brings over uses a remote buffer overflow, or Firefox finally has an unpatched vuln, or your email program has an arbitrary code execution vuln, or your hosts file is slightly out of date and you get 0wned.

Your pride and arrogance will be your downfall.

Also, what's the matter with Germany? Hacking is illegal there.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 6, 2008)

Pi said:


> dd is no more and no less destructive than 'cat' combined with the shell's redirect operators. It's just as easy to shoot yourself in the foot using either.
> 
> It is slightly more powerful, but that's because it has options like conv=ucase, conv=noerror, conv=ebcdic.


True. But there are most of those $Insertbadwordhere post combos of dd and urandom or dev0 as destructive tipps to harm helpless newbies asking for help. 
In the end, anything which combines filemanipulation and bitgenerators like urandom are deadly, but a beginner doesn't know that.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 6, 2008)

Pi said:


> Also, what's the matter with Germany? Hacking is illegal there.


ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL!!!
You made my day! xD
That new law already caused more damage than it probably could ever have prevented. With even the admins being terrified that the might get sued for using a tool that checks your system for security holes the government did the worst thing possible to the german IT. -.-


----------



## Erro (Jun 6, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Try AVG or Avast!. Both free.



I ran Avast for two weeks and wiped my entire hard drive just to get rid of it, it pissed me off that badly.

Quite honestly, I haven't run any anti-virus for quite some time now. What bothers me is that its all too plainly clear that half the viruses out there are created by the anti-virus companies themselves to force you to buy their stuff, which counters said viruses, to keep your system safe. Its a rather ridiculous scheme of job security.


----------



## Pi (Jun 6, 2008)

Erro said:


> half the viruses out there are created by the anti-virus companies themselves to force you to buy their stuff



I have one question: what mind-altering drugs have you been using?


----------



## Koda (Jun 7, 2008)

@Pi: I religiously back stuff up everywhere. If my computer got pwnzord by a virus, I'd well.. just reformat it. XD
Buuuut... my computing habits have worked for 6 years now. Think that says anything about how much I worry about viruses?

@Eevee: Yeah, I forgot about that XD. I was using dd to image drives over the network from within a live CD environment. (Its the fastest way to mirror XP on multiple computers).

This was the real command:
dd if=/dev/hda1 | (ssh 192.168.1.75 'dd of=/dev/hda1')


----------



## Aurali (Jun 7, 2008)

Koda: your fine without virus protection.. why waste the money when all your really gonna get is a bunch of adware ; 

Pi: one in a million shot.. he'll get any of that..

Apple users: your time will come again... your arrogance will be your downfall.

grievous: AVG gives WAAAAAAY too many false positives.. I hate writing programs around that thing..


----------



## Pi (Jun 7, 2008)

Koda said:


> @Pi: I religiously back stuff up everywhere. If my computer got pwnzord by a virus, I'd well.. just reformat it. XD
> Buuuut... my computing habits have worked for 6 years now. Think that says anything about how much I worry about viruses?



Don't use 'pwnzord', it makes you sound like an idiot.

How would you know if you got infected by a virus? You don't have AV software.

Also, my computing habits of logging in as root every day worked for me for a few years, then  after a few near-typos in /etc and one in /var/lib I stopped that.



> Pi: one in a million shot.. he'll get any of that..


Uh-huh. How much malware research have you done?



> Apple users: your time will come again... your arrogance will be your downfall.


Yeah, because on OS X  users always run as administrator and so malicious code can attack the whole system. Oh wait.



> grievous: AVG gives WAAAAAAY too many false positives.. I hate writing programs around that thing..


What? AVG hinders the operation of a compiler and linker?


----------



## FurTheWin (Jun 7, 2008)

I voted no, but I do have one protection though: Common sense.


----------



## Koda (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> Don't use 'pwnzord', it makes you sound like an idiot.


Oh sorry. I was just trying to relate.



Pi said:


> How would you know if you got infected by a virus? You don't have AV software.



*shrug* Simple. I don't get viruses. Every virus I've seen f***s with your computer. I know data stealing ones exist or whatever too. Yeah. Whatever. I don't get infected. Ever. I *used* to have Symantec client security on an older computer, but meh.. Never caught anything. I just know what is safe and what isn't. Is it really that hard to get?



Pi said:


> Also, my computing habits of logging in as root every day worked for me for a few years, then  after a few near-typos in /etc and one in /var/lib I stopped that.



Lol. Thats the beauty of dd.. you can screw up your computer without even BEING root! XD

Not nearly as troublesome as the time I broke emerge though. And apparently every other shell command simultaneously. Then I found out it was just python or something being stupid. Whatever. Screw gentoo. Well okay no, its still nice in some instances..


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> *shrug* Simple. I don't get viruses. Every virus I've seen f***s with your computer. I know data stealing ones exist or whatever too. Yeah. Whatever. I don't get infected. Ever. I *used* to have Symantec client security on an older computer, but meh.. Never caught anything. I just know what is safe and what isn't. Is it really that hard to get?


There have been documented cases of software from reputable dealers being infected with viruses from the factory. So, no, you don't know what is safe.

And you still can't tell if you have a virus if you don't have antivirus software, so let me put it simply: I don't believe you.




			
				koda said:
			
		

> Lol. Thats the beauty of dd.. you can screw up your computer without even BEING root! XD



Uh, no. To write to raw disk devices (the primarily-recognized use of dd) you need to be root, in the general case, unless someone chmod'd the devices to be world-writable, which would just be dumb.



			
				koda said:
			
		

> Not nearly as troublesome as the time I broke emerge though. And apparently every other shell command simultaneously. Then I found out it was just python or something being stupid. Whatever. Screw gentoo. Well okay no, its still nice in some instances..



Nah, screw Gentoo. 

And don't talk to me about system breakage until a filesystem bug and RAID controller fuckup nuke most of your /bin and all of your /sbin, requiring that you rebuild the core (Debian) packages by only using utilities from /usr/bin. Not having ls, sh, init, mv, rm, and mount makes for a pretty nonfunctional system, but with /usr/bin/ruby I could at least pretend to have mv and rm and cp. Now that's some breakage.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> Uh-huh. How much malware research have you done?


>3 and how much have you done? anyone can be hacked.. there is no such thing as a flawless system. and every system I've ever seen has some form of unwanted thing on it.. if your safe enough (or not connected to the internet) you don't really need anti-virus. just a small cleaner like ad aware..
THOUGH IT'S HIGHLY RECOMMENDED YOU DO! APPLE/LINUX INCLUDED.



> Yeah, because on OS X  users always run as administrator and so malicious code can attack the whole system. Oh wait.


Fail.
OS X users tend to be ignorant of any sort of protection. I know of a few viruses that can successfully place themselves on an OS X machine. and since OS X users are so arrogant, they don't have the protection they need to even notice any changes. thus these viruses (usually spy-ware) go unnoticed. and see my previous comment.

and Windows XP sucks.



> What? AVG hinders the operation of a compiler and linker?



Nope. AVG searches for virus-like code. and some operations us Video game producers put in code are considered virus-like to that program. and thus must be worked around.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> >3 and how much have you done? anyone can be hacked.. there is no such thing as a flawless system. and every system I've ever seen has some form of unwanted thing on it.. if your safe enough (or not connected to the internet) you don't really need anti-virus. just a small cleaner like ad aware..
> THOUGH IT'S HIGHLY RECOMMENDED YOU DO! APPLE/LINUX INCLUDED.


No, seriously, how much malware research have you done? Where did I ever dispute any of your points? And come look at my NetBSD box. It's got nothing unwanted on it. 

And who on the FURAFFINITY FORUMS isn't connected to the internet? Meaningless argument.



> Fail.
> OS X users tend to be ignorant of any sort of protection. I know of a few viruses that can successfully place themselves on an OS X machine. and since OS X users are so arrogant, they don't have the protection they need to even notice any changes. thus these viruses (usually spy-ware) go unnoticed. and see my previous comment.


There aren't any in-the-wild OS X viruses. There are various vulnerabilities in certain wireless drivers that provide for the possibility of kernel-mode shellcode execution, but an AV scanner won't be able to protect against that anyway. Plus, OS X users are usually a bit more cognizant of the need for backups (Cf Time Machine) and security (cf not running as administrator) than PC users.

It's funny that you state that OS X users are arrogant when just a few posts above someone is saying "I NEVER USE AV BECAUSE I'M TOO SMART AND I KNOW I'M NOT INFECTED."



> and Windows XP sucks.


How...  non sequitur.



> Nope. AVG searches for virus-like code. and some operations us Video game producers put in code are considered virus-like to that program. and thus must be worked around.



Examples, please? I'd like to independently verify this. I'm sure if you've run across this you would be able to post a proof-of-concept.


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> *shrug* Simple. I don't get viruses. Every virus I've seen f***s with your computer. I know data stealing ones exist or whatever too. Yeah. Whatever. I don't get infected. Ever. I *used* to have Symantec client security on an older computer, but meh.. Never caught anything. I just know what is safe and what isn't. Is it really that hard to get?


Bullshit.

You don't know shit about what's going on on your machine and its security is suspended on a strong of arrogance.

I've stopped counting the years i've now been running without any sort of router/firewall/antivirus/antispyware/anti-whatever on plain Windows XP. However, i have not been doing that because i have some irrational belief that i am immune. I do so because i know that every reasonably attackable access point on my system is closed. I do so because i know that i will be able to recognize any intrusion far quicker than an antivirus program could, because i am very intimitely close to the performance profiles of my machines as well as with the range of tools each one runs. Any sort of change that is not initiated by me personally immediately springs to my attention, due to a number of tools i employ, that are not any of the aforementioned.

In addition to the above i also have the ability to remove any kind of virus that could infest my system on my own, manually.

If you cannot claim any of the above, then you are simply a self-deluded arrogant idiot.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> No, seriously, how much malware research have you done? Where did I ever dispute any of your points? And come look at my NetBSD box. It's got nothing unwanted on it.


 check your cookies :3



> There aren't any in-the-wild OS X viruses. There are various vulnerabilities in certain wireless drivers that provide for the possibility of kernel-mode shellcode execution, but an AV scanner won't be able to protect against that anyway. Plus, OS X users are usually a bit more cognizant of the need for backups (Cf Time Machine) and security (cf not running as administrator) than PC users.


 :3 care to prove that? both the mac users thing, and the no wild OS-X viruses thing?



> It's funny that you state that OS X users are arrogant when just a few posts above someone is saying "I NEVER USE AV BECAUSE I'M TOO SMART AND I KNOW I'M NOT INFECTED."


YEP. Mac != intelligence :3



> Examples, please? I'd like to independently verify this. I'm sure if you've run across this you would be able to post a proof-of-concept.


google is your friend hun.


----------



## verix (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> *shrug* Simple. I don't get viruses. Every virus I've seen f***s with your computer. I know data stealing ones exist or whatever too. Yeah. Whatever. I don't get infected. Ever. I *used* to have Symantec client security on an older computer, but meh.. Never caught anything. I just know what is safe and what isn't. Is it really that hard to get?


I recently dissected and reversed a Chinese botnet that infected you through Internet Explorer silently without your knowledge whatsoever, just by visiting a website like, oh, Wescom Credit Union for example. It injected itself into your browser by a man-in-the-middle ARP poisoning attack.

So just because you don't download nasty things doesn't mean nasty things can't get into your system. Granted pretty much all furries use Firefox, but the point remains.


Eli said:


> YEP. Mac != intelligence :3


Which wasn't his point.


Eli said:


> :3 care to prove that? both the mac users thing, and the no wild OS-X viruses thing?
> 
> google is your friend hun.


The onus of evidence is on you in both these cases, pretty much. I mean, if you ever watched _Double Dare_ on Nickelodeon, this is the part where you say "challenge." Except instead of "challenge," you prove your points.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> check your cookies :3


Okay. Oh, look, they're all cookies I want or don't care about! They're also not malicious code! Wow! You sure showed me!



> :3 care to prove that? both the mac users thing, and the no wild OS-X viruses thing?


Sure thing. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/askjack/2006/02/mac_users_face_first_os_x_viru.html 2006. 2 years ago. One of the non-unique google hits for "os x virus wild". In order to spread, it required that you enter your administrator password, which is not a common thing for a .jpg file to ask. As for the backups thing, by default, OS X asks if you want to use any external drive you plug in as backing store for Time Machine. Not to mention the thrice-mentioned fact that OS X users do not run as Administrator and must authenticate in order to do any system-wide damage.

2: http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/viruses-and-spyware/osxrspluga.html 2007. Last year. Changes DNS settings, and oh hey, that requires authentication.

Compared with the thousands of Windows viruses that just launch themselves, I'd say I have a fairly strong point in saying that OS X has no viruses in the wild.



> YEP. Mac != intelligence :3


The guy saying that was a Windows user. Are you trying to be as naive as possible, or are you just good at it naturally?



> google is your friend hun.


 Burden of proof is on the prosecution. Bust out with some proof of concept code, since YOU claim that YOU have run across the problem.


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> check your cookies :3


Cookies are NOT a security issue. If you think so you're on the same retardedly paranoid tinfoilhat level as people who think the gubmint did 9/11.

They do not contain any executable code and do not affect ANY part of your computer. At worst they carry around your browsing habits to advertising companies and let them know that one person who bought a new rice cooker also likes to look at lolita mangas.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 8, 2008)

What a lovely flamewar we got here. Never imagined this could happen because of a little discussion about virus protection. ^^
just for the log:
1) NO system is completely safe. No Windows, no Linux, no Mac OS, no BDS, no Solaris, BeOS, AmigaOS, etc. The question is: how difficult is it to get a virus in that system, some systems are harder to crack than others, but this doesn't mean a Win XP cannot cope with a standard Linux installation. All it takes is a very good Admin who knows what he's doing.
2)Everybody who says that he doesn't need a virus protection or anything similar because he can find some bad bytes is either naive or betrays himself. Many viruses/trojans are spreading through exploits in web browsers etc. Of course you can try to get the source code of the page before you open it with your browser and try to examine if there is something wrong there, but I have my doubts you do that. ;-)
3) With viruses now even shipped with new hardware you cannot trust anybody, even the hardware vendors.
4)Cookies might not be malware, but I see NO reason why anybody should know where I was in the net. That's why I frequently throw out all the cookies I got (if I accepted them anyways). Privacy is a valuable thing, and I'm not gonna give it away without a fight. }:->


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 8, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> 4)Cookies might not be malware, but I see NO reason why anybody should know where *I* was in the net.


False assumption. They have no clue where *you* are going. All they're getting is some information about a completely anonymous person that links one interest with another.

Anyhow, if you want to discuss privacy, please make a new thread. The security waters here are muddy enough.


----------



## Koda (Jun 8, 2008)

Xenofur said:


> If you cannot claim any of the above, then you are simply a self-deluded arrogant idiot.



Numbers don't lie though bud. :/ My computer has not been 'taken down' by a virus in SIX years. Which is the amount of time I've had it. (In fact, come to think of it, the only thing that ever went *wrong* with my computer was my CD-ROM >_>)

Apparently, I'm just doing something right. I can't claim that I'm totally immune and it is impossible for my computer to be infected, but my track record is pretty damn good. It doesn't take a genius to steer away from things which are fishy. "Heeeey look! A porn that says its 3 minutes long--waaait... its file size is only 19k..."

You all call me an idiot, but who's the one out a couple hundred bucks on virus protection software costs? And I bet your computers *still* got fucked up *anyway.* So can we please cut that out? And yes, I can claim the 'above statements', doing that shit was my JOB for 6 MONTHS. Not to mention previous years of disinfecting my mom's friends' computers. (And making a shit load of money doing it 8))


----------



## icehawk (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> Numbers don't lie though bud. :/ My computer has not been 'taken down' by a virus in SIX years. Which is the amount of time I've had it. (In fact, come to think of it, the only thing that ever went *wrong* with my computer was my CD-ROM >_>)



The ones that 'take down' your computer are merely annoying. The dangerous ones are the ones that sit quietly in the background logging every keystroke you make and then silently ship them off to their C&C server.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> Okay. Oh, look, they're all cookies I want or don't care about! They're also not malicious code! Wow! You sure showed me!


 :3 it can be a security risk if used correctly.



> As for the backups thing, by default, OS X asks if you want to use any external drive you plug in as backing store for Time Machine. Not to mention the thrice-mentioned fact that OS X users do not run as Administrator and must authenticate in order to do any system-wide damage.


 I'm just gonna give my observations. I go to a college where 40% of it's students run on macs. All laptops though, that might make a difference.
Take them anyway you want. I can't prove them.

Most mac users who own their own computer won't backup their data. it takes to long for them to do.
Most mac users will NOT run as admin.. your right there.
Most mac users download and open things without checking what they are. and about half just run things. without knowing what they are.



> Compared with the thousands of Windows viruses that just launch themselves, I'd say I have a fairly strong point in saying that OS X has no viruses in the wild.


 that don't help your point. windows is a virus prone PoS... my point still is apple is not as secure as everyone wants to believe.



> The guy saying that was a Windows user. Are you trying to be as naive as possible, or are you just good at it naturally?


 :3 and I'm a linux user. I've used Macs. I've used windows. I know of securitye wholes in all of them.
I know viruses in all of them. Difference between Mac/linux and windows is that most virus writers go for windows. it's got a few more holes, and a ton more users... it's a better target. BUT Macs are not invulnerable.. as there holes usually take longer to become public. BUT they are there (my favorite is the virus created in march made as a proof of concept >..>) plug something in (which mac users WILL do without checking the contents) and you got the virus :3


> Burden of proof is on the prosecution. Bust out with some proof of concept code, since YOU claim that YOU have run across the problem.


so.. you won't take a full page of false positive links as proof?will you take this?
http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/gr/avgfree.htm
 okay.. no? then I'm guessing you want my personal code? no dice.


----------



## Fu (Jun 8, 2008)

Not on my laptop, mainly because I can't be bothered to buy any and it doesn't seem to be having any problems.


----------



## icehawk (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> Most mac users who own their own computer won't backup their data. it takes to long for them to do.



Afer the initial backup, (which takes anywhere from 1-3 hours) time machine backups take about two minutes. I've caught my desktop in the process of making backups about twice since I enalbed time machine in April.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> :3 it can be a security risk if used correctly.


In your obnoxious words, ":3 care to prove that"? Give me a hypothetical attack scenario using nothing but cookies.

A little text file that keeps some data isn't a security risk any way I look at it, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that you're not qualified to talk about what you're talking about.



> I'm just gonna give my observations. I go to a college where 40% of it's students run on macs. All laptops though, that might make a difference.
> Take them anyway you want. I can't prove them.


Then you're as good as wrong.



> Most mac users who own their own computer won't backup their data. it takes to long for them to do.


Already rebutted above.


> Most mac users will NOT run as admin.. your right there.


okay


> Most mac users download and open things without checking what they are. and about half just run things. without knowing what they are.


And for that to do anything bad to their system they have to authenticate. The worst that'll happen is some files in their homedir get lost. See, there's still no viruses wild on OS X.



> that don't help your point. windows is a virus prone PoS... my point still is apple is not as secure as everyone wants to believe.



OS X is more secure than windows because, among many other things (kauth, their userland security framework) in order to make an.. Why am I even saying this again? You're just going to take it the wrong way because you apparently lack reading comprehension.



> :3 and I'm a linux user. I've used Macs. I've used windows. I know of securitye wholes in all of them.



Security. Holes. Am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even spell the issues you're discussing?

I've used, in no particular order, NeXTstep, BeOS, Plan 9, Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, Windows (various versions), HP-UX, and LMOS. I know of security holes in all of them too. 



> I know viruses in all of them. Difference between Mac/linux and windows is that most virus writers go for windows. it's got a few more holes, and a ton more users... it's a better target. BUT Macs are not invulnerable.. as there holes usually take longer to become public. BUT they are there (my favorite is the virus created in march made as a proof of concept >..>) plug something in (which mac users WILL do without checking the contents) and you got the virus :3



OS X doesn't autorun by default. Apple changed that back with Quicktime 2.5 on System 7. I know this because I got hit by the AutoRun9805D virus, the train of which was likely the most recent in-the-wild virus targeting apple hardware.

I know people who have _released_ vulns for OS X, by the by. I'm not merely talking out of my ass here. The holes become publicly known without, uh, ever being exploited in the wild.


> so.. you won't take a full page of false positive links as proof?will you take this?
> http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/gr/avgfree.htm
> okay.. no? then I'm guessing you want my personal code? no dice.


Well, yes. If you say you have code that triggers an AVG false positive, then I'd expect to see it. You remember that whole proof thing? Also, the site you linked has a number, not an example. It also doesn't have a date or cite sources, so it's useless.

And now for something completely the same:



			
				Koda said:
			
		

> Numbers don't lie though bud. :/ My computer has not been 'taken down' by a virus in SIX years. Which is the amount of time I've had it. (In fact, come to think of it, the only thing that ever went *wrong* with my computer was my CD-ROM >_>)


Glad to see you're part of a botnet.



> Apparently, I'm just doing something right. I can't claim that I'm totally immune and it is impossible for my computer to be infected, but my track record is pretty damn good. It doesn't take a genius to steer away from things which are fishy. "Heeeey look! A porn that says its 3 minutes long--waaait... its file size is only 19k..."


Which STILL doesn't protect you from legit software that got infected in the supply chain, or network worms, or code execution vulnerabilities in client software that require a visit to a malicious page.



> You all call me an idiot, but who's the one out a couple hundred bucks on virus protection software costs? And I bet your computers *still* got fucked up *anyway.*



I'm out $0 on virus protection software costs because I run unknown/suspicious binaries in a VM, monitor my autoruns, have an NTFS-capable boot disk, and a copy of Windows Internals. If I fuck my system up with a virus, it's my fault. I don't recommend that people who aren't as capable as me run without virus protection, which you appear to be recommending.



> So can we please cut that out? And yes, I can claim the 'above statements', doing that shit was my JOB for 6 MONTHS. Not to mention previous years of disinfecting my mom's friends' computers. (And making a shit load of money doing it )


It was my job for years too. The only reason I'm not running an AV scanner on this box is because I was actually using it for malware research, and having the AV software on would just be in the way.

So, yeah, I'm cautious, not blatantly arrogant.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Fu said:


> Not on my laptop, mainly because I can't be bothered to buy any and it doesn't seem to be having any problems.



The latter is a pretty poor justification. Snag one of AVG, Avast, or if you're really destitute, ClamAV. Clam doesn't do on-demand scanning, so you have to manually invoke it.


----------



## Fu (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> The latter is a pretty poor justification. Snag one of AVG, Avast, or if you're really destitute, ClamAV. Clam doesn't do on-demand scanning, so you have to manually invoke it.



I also couldn't be bothered to find out which free programs were best, if that justifies a little more.

Cheers, I'll look into those.


----------



## verix (Jun 8, 2008)

Fu said:


> I also couldn't be bothered to find out which free programs were best, if that justifies a little more.
> 
> Cheers, I'll look into those.


I think AVG uses a heuristic-based viral scanning engine, but I'm not entirely sure, so if you're looking for something good and free, AVG has yet to fail me. When I was working with that virus I found earlier, AVG seemed to know it was bad (but it was considered a "Generic Trojan 07"), yet Symantec and McAfee didn't have signatures for it.

DEFCON is having a "Race to Zero" contest this year that's going to show how easy it is for viruses to sneak past scanners, so watch for which scanners fail, it'll be interesting.


----------



## nrr (Jun 8, 2008)

Eli said:


> :3 it can be a security risk if used correctly.


You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Eevee (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> *shrug* Simple. I don't get viruses. Every virus I've seen f***s with your computer. I know data stealing ones exist or whatever too. Yeah. Whatever. I don't get infected. Ever.


So..  you know you don't get viruses because you never see a virus, but in the same paragraph you admit that there exists an entire *class* of viruses that would not be immediately obvious.  What?



Eli said:


> >3 and how much have you done? anyone can be hacked.. there is no such thing as a flawless system.


Relevance?



Eli said:


> and every system I've ever seen has some form of unwanted thing on it..


I'm curious what you think on my desktop is "unwanted".



Eli said:


> Nope. AVG searches for virus-like code. and some operations us Video game producers put in code are considered virus-like to that program. and thus must be worked around.


Boo hoo.  Tell AVG to fix their crap.



Eli said:


> check your cookies :3
> 
> :3 care to prove that? both the mac users thing, and the no wild OS-X viruses thing?
> 
> ...


Stop being an obnoxious git.

:3


----------



## Koda (Jun 8, 2008)

Pi said:


> So, yeah, I'm cautious, not blatantly arrogant.



Did I not say I was cautious?

Post #77:


> ...I just know what is safe and what isn't. Is it really that hard to get?



I just like how this has some how got everybody butt hurt. I'm sorry about that. I haven't got a virus for years, I don't foresee one, and if I was infected tomorrow, I wouldn't change my habits. 

Sooo... lawl anybody who took this too seriously. This is *my* computer and *my* data. Its my choice how I choose to protect it.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> Did I not say I was cautious?
> I just like how this has some how got everybody butt hurt. I'm sorry about that. I haven't got a virus for years, I don't foresee one, and if I was infected tomorrow, I wouldn't change my habits.
> 
> Sooo... lawl anybody who took this too seriously. This is *my* computer and *my* data. Its my choice how I choose to protect it.



I was almost sympathetic with you until you got to the "I wouldn't change my habits" part. That turns you into "actively stupid."

And you don't protect your data, obviously.

YHL.


----------



## verix (Jun 8, 2008)

Koda said:


> Did I not say I was cautious?


Tell me how you'd prevent yourself from being infected by a zero-day exploit in your browser of choice by visiting websites that you consider safe (and technically are), but are being intercepted by forces outside your control.

I'm asking this because it's a real scenario. And the question is mostly rhetorical, because you can't. It is simply naive to not have anti-virus protection, because you're assuming the only vector of infection comes from downloading bad files, which is simply only one of many vectors of attack.


----------



## BunnyEarBoy (Jun 8, 2008)

What the hell is a "virus" ????
sorry I run LINUX and I dont understand your bullshit Microsoft jibba jabba

(\ /)
^_^


----------



## Drakaji (Jun 9, 2008)

Yeah, I personally use Avast due to it's popularity and frequent updating. The only downside is the frequent updating alerts that I haven't turned off for some reason.
Team Fortress 2 isn't as entertaining when a loud voice tells you the database has been updated D:


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 9, 2008)

Drakaji said:


> Team Fortress 2 isn't as entertaining when a loud voice tells you the database has been updated D:


Well, it's better to have the system tell you that the database has been updated than a voice telling you that a virus has successfully been installed. ;-)
@all the linux user who say that they can't be harmed by viruses because the yare using Linux:
THAT IS BULLS***!
There are quite a lot viruses for Linux available, and those pesky things are FAR MORE sophisticated than those puny little things you get on a Windows PC - because Linux usually IS so hard to crack. Most Linux viruses are rootkits btw, just in case you don't know what level we're talking about ....


----------



## Pi (Jun 9, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> Well, it's better to have the system tell you that the database has been updated than a voice telling you that a virus has successfully been installed. ;-)
> @all the linux user who say that they can't be harmed by viruses because the yare using Linux:
> THAT IS BULLS***!
> There are quite a lot viruses for Linux available, and those pesky things are FAR MORE sophisticated than those puny little things you get on a Windows PC - because Linux usually IS so hard to crack. Most Linux viruses are rootkits btw, just in case you don't know what level we're talking about ....



Rootkits aren't viral, though they are definitely malicious. However, they're not frequently software found in the wild, unless you've pissed somebody off.

More frequently, unprivileged accounts are broken into and (assuming you aren't kernel-vulnerable) are used as botnets/scanners.

Again, from experience.

Also, how much rootkit development have you done?


----------



## Zanzer (Jun 9, 2008)

Norton FTW


----------



## FurTheWin (Jun 9, 2008)

03pagea said:


> Norton FTW



Norton makes the computer slower, and introduces more problems than the viruses it fights.

Norton is lagware.


----------



## nrr (Jun 9, 2008)

BunnyEarBoy said:


> sorry I run LINUX and I dont understand your bullshit Microsoft jibba jabba


OK, see, Linux is only as secure as the shitbag who has legitimate access to root.  The general idea is that you'd do the same things on Linux that you'd do on Windows, namely screen executables that you'd run for potential threats (possibly in another Xen domain, in a chroot jail, or whatever) and be weary of things in general.

For example, giving random users on the street a shell account on the Linux box sitting in your basement, even if you have it locked down, will most likely result in someone escalating permissions or finding an exploit in the kernel that allows usermode code to cause a panic.

Hey, doesn't that sound just a little worse than what happens on Windows?  I think it does!


----------



## BunnyEarBoy (Jun 9, 2008)

nrr said:


> OK, see, Linux is only as secure as the shitbag who has legitimate access to root.  The general idea is that you'd do the same things on Linux that you'd do on Windows, namely screen executables that you'd run for potential threats (possibly in another Xen domain, in a chroot jail, or whatever) and be weary of things in general.
> 
> For example, giving random users on the street a shell account on the Linux box sitting in your basement, even if you have it locked down, will most likely result in someone escalating permissions or finding an exploit in the kernel that allows usermode code to cause a panic.
> 
> Hey, doesn't that sound just a little worse than what happens on Windows?  I think it does!




Sooo....
I should take down all the banners displaying my IP and usernames/passwords...and stop letting complete strangers use my computer with full root access? 

Virus protection is like a condom....
If you stick your D#(%& in a bucket of broken glass...I dont care how many condoms you have on....its gona suck!


----------



## nrr (Jun 9, 2008)

BunnyEarBoy said:


> Sooo....
> I should take down all the banners displaying my IP and usernames/passwords...and stop letting complete strangers use my computer with full root access?


Reread what I wrote and try again.


----------



## Aden (Jun 9, 2008)

No protection. Mac. The best virus protection is your brain and your discretion.

And I don't think it's security through obscurity. Anyone remember OS 9? Far more obscure than OS X, but also more prone to virii.


----------



## Kumiko_Fox (Jun 9, 2008)

Nope, never have and never will use virus protection.  My computer is immune to viruses because it is a Mac


----------



## Drakaji (Jun 9, 2008)

Kumiko_Fox said:


> Nope, never have and never will use virus protection.  My computer is immune to viruses because it is a Mac




Enjoy it while you can. Should mac ever rival or overtake microsoft guess who's the new target? =)
That being said no system is invulnerable. 
Someone will do something eventually and that just mainly depends on the popularity and their diligence to their subject.
At a recent hacking competition someone had created a program that broke through a Macbook Air in two minutes after instructing them to simply visit one website.
Here's an article over the subject
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/03/28.1.shtml


----------



## Pi (Jun 9, 2008)

Drakaji said:


> Enjoy it while you can. Should mac ever rival or overtake microsoft guess who's the new target? =)
> That being said no system is invulnerable.
> Someone will do something eventually and that just mainly depends on the popularity and their diligence to their subject.
> At a recent hacking competition someone had created a program that broke through a Macbook Air in two minutes after instructing them to simply visit one website.
> ...



That's nothing. I've seen Mac OS X machines get compromised by being in the same room as a properly-configured access point.



			
				Kumiko_Fox said:
			
		

> Nope, never have and never will use virus protection. My computer is immune to viruses because it is a Mac



Ugh. No. It is not immune to viruses. There just aren't any in the wild. I (or anyone, really) could easily write a program that would spread over any network shares you have access to and when-launched, continue spreading on that machine then queue a job for next week to remove all accessible files.

Granted, OS X users are slightly more intelligent in general, and would be less likely to fall for this trick. But if someone did this and released it as part of a real app, you wouldn't be screaming "OMG IMMUNE" any more.


----------



## Drakaji (Jun 9, 2008)

Pi said:


> That's nothing. I've seen Mac OS X machines get compromised by being in the same room as a properly-configured access point.


Lol, well there you have it.
Though in theory macs are MORE vulnerable to viruses than windows don't you think? They don't have to deal with it constantly so they don't adapt to it consistently. It's like vaccination I suppose. Doing it once helps but keeping up on it is what really protects you.


----------



## nrr (Jun 9, 2008)

Drakaji said:


> Lol, well there you have it.
> Though in theory macs are MORE vulnerable to viruses than windows don't you think? They don't have to deal with it constantly so they don't adapt to it consistently. It's like vaccination I suppose. Doing it once helps but keeping up on it is what really protects you.


Or could it be that Apple has no clue when it comes to security?


----------



## Drakaji (Jun 9, 2008)

nrr said:


> Or could it be that Apple has no clue when it comes to security?



Either, or.. lol
Though I will admit that most attacks are because of user negligence such as saying YES on every pop-up for their favorite "web site"


----------



## icehawk (Jun 9, 2008)

Drakaji said:


> Lol, well there you have it.
> Though in theory macs are MORE vulnerable to viruses than windows don't you think? They don't have to deal with it constantly so they don't adapt to it consistently. It's like vaccination I suppose. Doing it once helps but keeping up on it is what really protects you.



Except Windows still has that whole "oh let's make everyone local admin by default" thing. And before someone whips out UAC, that's not going to help a regular user because they're neither going to read nor comprehend the the dialog box.


----------



## Skwiggletok (Jun 9, 2008)

I use avast


----------



## net-cat (Jun 9, 2008)

icehawk said:


> And before someone whips out UAC, that's not going to help a regular user because they're neither going to read nor comprehend the the dialog box.


I'm inclined to agree with this assessment, but I'd also like to point out that the password boxes in Mac OS X and Ubuntu will be equally ineffective for exactly the same reason.


----------



## Pi (Jun 9, 2008)

Also, who are the morons that answered affirmative to the #2 option (using more than one AV scanner)? Because if you have the slightest clue how on-demand/on-access scanners work, you'd know that it's a really stupid idea.


----------



## Eevee (Jun 9, 2008)

icehawk said:


> Except Windows still has that whole "oh let's make everyone local admin by default" thing. And before someone whips out UAC, that's not going to help a regular user because they're neither going to read nor comprehend the the dialog box.


Also a fuckload of people are disabling UAC entirely because it gets in their way too often.  :V

"Users don't read dialogs" and "users hate to be interrupted" take to their next logical extreme..


----------



## icehawk (Jun 9, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Also a fuckload of people are disabling UAC entirely because it gets in their way too often.  :V
> 
> "Users don't read dialogs" and "users hate to be interrupted" take to their next logical extreme..



Oh the best part about those UAC dialogs is that sometimes they're completely wrong. We have a Vista test box at work; I was doing some software testing and I try to delete a file that's in use by another process. Instead of popping up a dialog saying that 'this file cannot be deleted because the file is in use', I get a UAC dialog telling me I do not have 'sufficient access privileges to delete the file'.


----------



## nrr (Jun 10, 2008)

icehawk said:


> We have a Vista test box at work; I was doing some software testing and I try to delete a file that's in use by another process. Instead of popping up a dialog saying that 'this file cannot be deleted because the file is in use', I get a UAC dialog telling me I do not have 'sufficient access privileges to delete the file'.


No, that's correct.  Because of Windows' insistence on using opportunistic file locking, you technically don't have sufficient access privileges to delete the file.

The process currently accessing the file owns the lock on the file, and since you're using another process to delete the file, the kernel goes, "Oh, wait, no, it doesn't work that way. You don't own the lock on that!"


----------



## Aurali (Jun 10, 2008)

As I'm guessing this is the other thread where you want my "data". I'll respond... but you gotta stop with the insults..



Pi said:


> In your obnoxious words, ":3 care to prove that"? Give me a hypothetical attack scenario using nothing but cookies.


  Simple but true hypothetical. User stores his SS in a cookie not knowing the website stored it there. Another website gets access to the cookie using a special parameter and now has your SS in their hands.




> Then you're as good as wrong.


 field testing and saying things are two different things. So your as wrong as I am.



> Already rebutted above.


How many users say "no" when the prompt goes up.



> And for that to do anything bad to their system they have to authenticate. The worst that'll happen is some files in their homedir get lost. See, there's still no viruses wild on OS X.[/qoute]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## net-cat (Jun 10, 2008)

Eevee said:


> Also a fuckload of people are disabling UAC entirely because it gets in their way too often.  :V


I've noticed that. And I've had a not insignificant number of people who have tried to disable it on my computer to be helpful. (I told them to stay the hell away from my computer.)

I want to know what these people are doing that it's constantly triggering. Only thing I've ever had it trigger for is installing something, messing around with hardware and certain control panels. Happens maybe once or twice a day. (About the same as I get prompted for my password in Ubuntu.)

Oh. There's also MATLAB. But that's largely because MATLAB is unbelievable piece of shit.

(Also, if you want to run as a limited user in XP, give suDown a try. It hasn't been updated in a year, though. Your mileage may vary.)


----------



## Aurali (Jun 11, 2008)

The people disable it within 5 days of installing Vista. You know.. when you do something that DOES need it every five minutes? installing programs. changing settings.. getting drivers just right. They think that it's gonna do that for the OSes entire life... so they cut it early.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 11, 2008)

Well, my old place of business loves them all the more for it.


----------



## Pi (Jun 11, 2008)

Eli said:


> As I'm guessing this is the other thread where you want my "data". I'll respond... but you gotta stop with the insults..





> Simple but true hypothetical. User stores his SS in a cookie not knowing the website stored it there. Another website gets access to the cookie using a special parameter and now has your SS in their hands.



Cookies do not pass between domains. What "special parameter"? You are incorrect.



> field testing and saying things are two different things. So your as wrong as I am.



No, because I can back up my claims!



> How many users say "no" when the prompt goes up.



Good question. All of the users I know are trained to say "no" unless they're expecting the prompt. 



> Alright! You got it! It'll cost you 29 USD though... I don't give this stuff out for free ya know.
> 
> not my fault you actually wanna see a false positive.



Oh, so you're going to _charge me money_ to back up _your_ claims? That's not how this works in the real world. Notice how I've backed up all of my claims with research?


----------



## dietrc70 (Jun 11, 2008)

nrr said:


> No, that's correct. Because of Windows' insistence on using opportunistic file locking, you technically don't have sufficient access privileges to delete the file.
> 
> The process currently accessing the file owns the lock on the file, and since you're using another process to delete the file, the kernel goes, "Oh, wait, no, it doesn't work that way. You don't own the lock on that!"


 
Thanks for explaining that.  I had often been confused by the insufficient privilege message.  I just wish it would tell me what process was using the file!


----------



## Pi (Jun 11, 2008)

dietrc70 said:


> Thanks for explaining that.  I had often been confused by the insufficient privilege message.  I just wish it would tell me what process was using the file!



They make utilities to find that out, you know.


----------



## Eevee (Jun 11, 2008)

Eli said:


> Simple but true hypothetical. User stores his SS in a cookie not knowing the website stored it there. Another website gets access to the cookie using a special parameter and now has your SS in their hands.


SPECIAL PARAMETER


none of this is even worth responding to tbh

you're just prattling away with defensive lines entirely devoid of any real content

lol charging $29 for evidence that anything you say is worth a damn


----------



## Aurali (Jun 11, 2008)

Eevee? You want the code? I'll give it to you.. I don't trust pi worth a damn though.


----------



## Pi (Jun 11, 2008)

Eli said:


> Eevee? You want the code? I'll give it to you.. I don't trust pi worth a damn though.



You don't trust me to what, exactly? Verify your claims?


----------



## Eevee (Jun 11, 2008)

Eli said:


> Eevee? You want the code? I'll give it to you.. I don't trust pi worth a damn though.


You do realize the first thing I'm likely to do with such code is give it to Pi?  I don't really care about how much AVG sucks or not.

edit: also I am curious why "minimal testcase" has not crossed your mind


----------



## Pi (Jun 12, 2008)

Eevee said:


> You do realize the first thing I'm likely to do with such code is give it to Pi?  I don't really care about how much AVG sucks or not.
> 
> edit: also I am curious why "minimal testcase" has not crossed your mind



Because if she had a test case at all she'd have posted it when I first called her out? A refusal to back up ones data, in my experience, means they have none to begin with.


----------



## Hexadecimal (Jun 18, 2008)

My computer has an old outdated version of McAfee which I hate because it bugs me with popup messages telling me to update it, it's annoying..


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

Hexadecimal said:


> My computer has an old outdated version of McAfee which I hate because it bugs me with popup messages telling me to update it, it's annoying..



Get rid of it and install one of the various free AV products out there. AVG, Avast.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 18, 2008)

Pi said:


> Get rid of it and install one of the various free AV products out there. AVG, Avast.


yeah. an up to date virus protection will almost always be better than an expired one. 



Eevee said:


> SPECIAL PARAMETER



somehow I forgot bout this >..> <..< then nrr said something in irc that reminded me.. 

XSS ring any bells to anyone?


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

Eli said:


> somehow I forgot bout this >..> <..< then nrr said something in irc that reminded me..
> 
> XSS ring any bells to anyone?



XSS is not a security vulnerability with cookies in the sense we were discussing; xss cannot be protected against with AV software. They're not "unwanted software" like you claimed, and are only a minor security threat outside of that.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 18, 2008)

XSS is not a security vulnerability. But it can be used to be.
http://jehiah.cz/archive/xss-stealing-cookies-101
(yeah I know it's an old link)


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

Eli said:


> XSS is not a security vulnerability. But it can be used to be.
> http://jehiah.cz/archive/xss-stealing-cookies-101
> (yeah I know it's an old link)



You know what? Stop acting like you know anything about security whatsoever. Go watch Hackers a few more times, or something.

I've *exploited* XSS holes. I'm more than familiar with the basic concept. XSS is a security vulnerability. Cookies, in and of themselves are not. You made a claim to the latter. You are incorrect.



			
				Eli said:
			
		

> XSS is not a security vulnerability. But it can be used to be.





			
				Eli said:
			
		

> XSS is not a security vulnerability. But it can be used to be.





			
				Eli said:
			
		

> XSS is not a security vulnerability. But it can be used to be.


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 18, 2008)

What you're talking about there is people stealing WANTED cookies. Cookies without which people would whine and complain, for example: "I don't stay logged in to paypal! D:" XSS would be used to steal that. However, it does not make the cookie in ANY way a security liability. It only means the site that is hit by it is written shittily.

At this point you have two choices: a) claim you have a reading comprehension disability, b) admit you have no idea what you're talking about, beyond having read some blogs.


----------



## nrr (Jun 18, 2008)

Pi said:


> You know what? Stop acting like you know anything about security whatsoever. Go watch Hackers a few more times, or something.


plz dont haek my gibsno


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

nrr said:


> plz dont haek my gibsno



i might let all the freon out


----------



## Midi Bear (Jun 18, 2008)

I have McAffe and site advisor, nothing more.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 18, 2008)

Xenofur said:


> What you're talking about there is people stealing WANTED cookies. Cookies without which people would whine and complain, for example: "I don't stay logged in to paypal! D:" XSS would be used to steal that. However, it does not make the cookie in ANY way a security liability. It only means the site that is hit by it is written shittily.
> 
> At this point you have two choices: a) claim you have a reading comprehension disability, b) admit you have no idea what you're talking about, beyond having read some blogs.



I actually do have a comprehension disability. >.> It's not more reading than writing though. My thoughts get scrambled in my own head at times and I have trouble getting my point across. . . especially with this lack of sleep issue I'm having as of late.


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

Eli said:


> I actually do have a comprehension disability. >.> It's not more reading than writing though. My thoughts get scrambled in my own head at times and I have trouble getting my point across. . . especially with this lack of sleep issue I'm having as of late.



So stay away from the real world and let the big boys and girls handle things.



Eli said:


> I have trouble getting my point across



It seems more like you have trouble forming and defending a point. Appalling.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 18, 2008)

Pi said:


> So stay away from the real world and let the big boys and girls handle things.


but they already took me from the real world and put me here!


----------



## Pi (Jun 18, 2008)

Eli said:


> but they already took me from the real world and put me here!



Get out.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 18, 2008)

Pi said:


> Get out.



How do you get out of a place with no physical representation?


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 19, 2008)

There's a button, "Logout". Also, stop posting, for your sake. We've already run this shit into the ground, no need to go the extra mile to run it *under*ground.


----------



## Xenofur (Jun 19, 2008)

Just got a new laptop and to check out some virus packages, infected it with a bunch of random and current virusesdumbware, to see which package is actually on top of the going ons.

Turns out that freeav and avast both spectacularly failed to actually find anything, while AVG even identified some rootkitting tool that i'd used 5 years ago once and forgotten about in some rar.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 19, 2008)

Xenofur said:


> Just got a new laptop and to check out some virus packages, infected it with a bunch of random and current virusesdumbware, to see which package is actually on top of the going ons.
> 
> Turns out that freeav and avast both spectacularly failed to actually find anything, while AVG even identified some rootkitting tool that i'd used 5 years ago once and forgotten about in some rar.


Unfortunately that will happen with every virus scanner you get atm. IIRC the best scanners are supposed to find about 90 to 95 percent of the common viruses whirling around in the net, but I REALLY have my doubts they really are that good (I think that 70 percent is more realistic). :-/


----------



## Eevee (Jun 19, 2008)

It only takes one.


----------



## reigoskeiter (Jun 19, 2008)

i use Computer Protection
erm....
F-Secures


----------



## arcticsilver (Jun 21, 2008)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Yes, I have McAfee.



Me too just because its free from Comcrap.  When I'm booted into Kubuntu once a week i use KlamAV to scan the windows drive.  Its actually caught a few McAffe missed.  But the best way to avoid viruses is have an updated system with all patches and don't download from places that don't look safe.


----------



## Pi (Jun 21, 2008)

arcticsilver said:


> Me too just because its free from Comcrap.  When I'm booted into Kubuntu once a week i use KlamAV to scan the windows drive.  Its actually caught a few McAffe missed.  But the best way to avoid viruses is have an updated system with all patches and don't download from places that don't look safe.



And to have an AV program because even if something looks safe, it might not be.


----------



## Wait Wait (Jun 21, 2008)

i don't have any


----------



## arcticsilver (Jun 21, 2008)

Pi said:


> And to have an AV program because even if something looks safe, it might not be.



correct.  Also the few virus McAffe missed that KlamAV found really would not have affected me since my comp was all patched up in windows so the virus we just useless.  The only one i can remember is the lsass.exe one that would crash your computer like no tomorrow.


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 21, 2008)

arcticsilver said:


> The only one i can remember is the lsass.exe one that would crash your computer like no tomorrow.


Hehe, that one is a nasty little bugger. ;-)


----------



## Killerdwagon (Jun 23, 2008)

Yeah, I have a hardware firewall on my home desktop computer, along with Norton 2007 On it, and on my laptop, i have Norton 2008, with all the internet security and all that jazz..


----------



## Elpants (Jun 24, 2008)

cracked ESET NOD32 (25,000 day trial...). Spybot Search and Destroy on Vista. Since I use an external HD for all media and moving files between partitions, I have a Clam AV on Ubuntu to scan any suspected files prior to moving them to Vista.


----------



## Pi (Jun 24, 2008)

Elpants said:


> cracked ESET NOD32



The irony of using a crack on security software is just too overwhelming, considering that using cracks is the computational equivalent of barebacking with HIV+ guys.


----------



## dystopia (Jun 24, 2008)

Pi said:


> The irony of using a crack on security software is just too overwhelming, considering that using cracks is the computational equivalent of barebacking with HIV+ guys.



I guess that means that PnP really stands for Party and Play, then?


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 25, 2008)

dystopia said:


> I guess that means that PnP really stands for Party and Play, then?


Nah, it's more like "Plug and Pray!"


----------



## Pi (Jun 25, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> Nah, it's more like "Plug and Pray!"



YFI


----------



## WarMocK (Jun 25, 2008)

Pi said:


> blah


Wannabe entertainer strikes again. ^^


----------

