Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: AntiVirus is dead

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    George Orwell Guest

    AntiVirus is dead

    IT-Director.com
    http://************/1dpri

    ...you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    ineffective at stopping viruses.

    To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
    it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
    Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
    is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
    let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,
    they use heuristics — which means that they try to recognise the bad
    guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
    test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
    only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV
    companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
    have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
    dramatic rate...


  2. #2
    Leythos Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
    >
    > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    > selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    > ineffective at stopping viruses.


    And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
    email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...

    How can you say they are not effective?



    --
    Leythos
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  3. #3
    Ant Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    "Leythos" wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
    >> selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    >> ineffective at stopping viruses.

    >
    > And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
    > email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...
    >
    > How can you say they are not effective?


    He/she/it is not saying anything. He/she/it is posting extracts from
    other people's articles without comment from an anonymous remailer.
    Usually this is a troll-sign.



  4. #4
    Woody Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    Another one for the Block list

    "Ant" <not@home.today> wrote in message
    news:se-dnUVUIIv6RJ_bnZ2dnUVZ8sGvnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
    > "Leythos" wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:37 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
    >>> selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    >>> ineffective at stopping viruses.

    >>
    >> And I've seen, each week, hundreds of viruses and malware stopped by the
    >> email scanning engines, by the web scanning engines...
    >>
    >> How can you say they are not effective?

    >
    > He/she/it is not saying anything. He/she/it is posting extracts from
    > other people's articles without comment from an anonymous remailer.
    > Usually this is a troll-sign.
    >
    >




  5. #5
    Lew/+Silat Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead


    "George Orwell" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    news:e8f2b8e9f9029b24ea1cd3774e984881@mixmaster.it ...
    > IT-Director.com
    > http://************/1dpri
    >
    > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    > selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    > ineffective at stopping viruses.
    >
    > To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
    > it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
    > Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
    > is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
    > let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,
    > they use heuristics - which means that they try to recognise the bad
    > guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
    > test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
    > only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV
    > companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
    > have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
    > dramatic rate...
    >


    Well with that logic we might as well kill ourselves as we are all going to die no matter what we do


    --
    Lew/+Silat


    The liver is evil. It must be punished.



  6. #6
    Turan Fettahoglu Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    > selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    > ineffective at stopping viruses.


    Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
    many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.

    Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".

    So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!

    Turan


  7. #7
    Aunti Virus Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <eu04gg$ibn$1@svr7.m-online.net>
    "Turan Fettahoglu" <turan.fe@t-online.de> wrote:
    >
    > > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    > > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    > > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    > > selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    > > ineffective at stopping viruses.

    >
    > Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
    > many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.
    >
    > Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".
    >
    > So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!
    >
    > Turan


    Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: N/A

    iQA/AwUBRgSr7wc1ZuHjbNh8EQIVMACg0sI+LJhw35qBm1eSgcmp6C UravIAn0yQ
    pYEiHcUGLNdKKaZ6h20CDNxY
    =qtcq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
    than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
    for abuse and hashcash info.






  8. #8
    mr whipple Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    > Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease

    Therefore, abstain from internet usage and you're 100% guaranteed never to
    become virus infected! I like that analogy!

    "Aunti Virus" <"auntivyrus
    ATnym.panta-rhei.eu.org"@remailer-debian.panta-rhei.eu.org> wrote in message
    news:CLSPZ30A39165.365775463@anonymous.poster...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > In article <eu04gg$ibn$1@svr7.m-online.net>
    > "Turan Fettahoglu" <turan.fe@t-online.de> wrote:
    >>
    >> > ..you may be unaware of the AVID (Anti Virus Is Dead) campaign that
    >> > I've been running. The goal of the campaign is simple. It aims to bring
    >> > down the AV industry which has, for the best part of 20 years, been
    >> > selling products http://************/pathetic_useless that are
    >> > ineffective at stopping viruses.

    >>
    >> Rubbish. You might as well say: condoms may break, so do not use them. In
    >> many cases they prevent infections, although not at a 100% success rate.
    >>
    >> Any malware writer will be glad about your "campaign".
    >>
    >> So: welcome to my killfile, Mr Troll!
    >>
    >> Turan

    >
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: N/A
    >
    > iQA/AwUBRgSr7wc1ZuHjbNh8EQIVMACg0sI+LJhw35qBm1eSgcmp6C UravIAn0yQ
    > pYEiHcUGLNdKKaZ6h20CDNxY
    > =qtcq
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    > The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    > is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
    > than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
    > for abuse and hashcash info.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




  9. #9
    kurt wismer Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    mr whipple wrote:
    >> Abstinence: 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease

    >
    > Therefore, abstain from internet usage and you're 100% guaranteed never to
    > become virus infected! I like that analogy!


    except that not all viruses come from the net... you have to abstain
    from putting anything into your computer at all...

    --
    "it's not the right time to be sober
    now the idiots have taken over
    spreading like a social cancer,
    is there an answer?"

  10. #10
    Dustin Cook Guest

    Re: AntiVirus is dead

    George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
    news:e8f2b8e9f9029b24ea1cd3774e984881@mixmaster.it :

    > To summarize: the reason why AV technology fails so frequently is that
    > it takes a wrong and ultimately doomed approach to stopping malware.
    > Mostly AV products use signatures to recognize the bad guys, but this
    > is almost completely useless for new viruses (some well known products
    > let in 80 percent of all new viruses). Where they don't use signatures,


    80% of all new viruses? Where is the research for this claim please?

    > they use heuristics — which means that they try to recognise the bad
    > guys by their behavior. This is ineffective because the virus writers
    > test their viruses against AV products before they release them and
    > only release the ones that will get through. The reality is that the AV



    Only release the ones that will get through eh? So... the virus writers
    do what then with the ones that didn't get thru? erase them and start
    over? LoL!

    > companies have been in a technology war with the virus writers and they
    > have lost. The outcome is that PCs still get infected by malware at a
    > dramatic rate...


    Yes, but that's more because of the human factor than anything else. Most
    malware can be prevented if the user is properly trained and makes use of
    the right software.



    --
    Dustin Cook
    Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - V2.2
    web: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk - email:
    bughunter.dustin@gmail.com.removethis
    Pad: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •