Desktop antivirus - it's dead

[cmsix]

"cbgerry" <cbgerry@bluecollarpc.net> wrote in message
news:1176066034.635620.156670@b75g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 6, 3:45 pm, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
> Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> PC Worldhttp://elfurl.com/qympl
>>
>> Some industry analysts are proclaiming the traditional antivirus method
>> for detecting and eradicating viruses, trojans, spyware and other
>> baneful code by matching it against a
>> signaturehttp://************/crapwareto be "dead."
>>
>> They say signature-based checking can't keep up with the flood of virus
>> variants manufactured by a criminal underworld that is beating the
>> antivirus vendors at their own game. And they are arguing it's time for
>> companies to adopt newer approaches, such as whitelisting or behavior-
>> blocking, to protect desktops and servers.
>>
>> "It's the beginning of the end for antivirus," says Robin Bloor,
>> partner at consulting firm Hurwitz & Associates, in Boston, who adds he
>> began his "antivirus is dead" campaign a year ago and feels even more
>> strongly about it today. "...The approach antivirus vendors take is
>> completely wrong. The criminals working to release these viruses
>> against computer users are testing against antivirus software. They
>> know what works and how to create variants."
>>
>> ..Instead of antivirus software, he says, users should be investing in
>> whitelisting software that prevents viruses from running because it
>> only allows authorized applications to run.
>>
>> Whitelisting products are available from SecureWave, Bit9, Savant,
>> AppSense and CA, the first traditional antivirus vendor to see the
>> light, in Bloor's view.
>
> ========================>
>
> They mean "heurisitics" in all descent antivirus paid protection ?
> Duh.... heurisitics. This is activated meaning real time protection in
> paid subscription antivirus software programs. Heurisitics is the
> ability to identifiy the malware threat by typical behavior without
> having the definitions yet written for removal and blocking of the
> particular threat - worm, virus, many trojans.
>
> ""QUOTE""
>> They say signature-based checking can't keep up with the flood of virus
> ""UNQUOTE""
>
> ...and it never did and never will. For newbies these idiot editors
> are writing to (and I am not the only one recognizing this) - for
> newbies / novice information here, the writer is calling a system scan
> with your antivirus as "signature-based checking" - like duh a-hole.
> Why would you do a scan, find and remove malware and then turn around
> and say that the PC was protected in the beginning as "signature-based
> checking" ??? How the h*ll was the PC ever protected by "sinature-
> based checking"?"?? Duh !!!
>
> So where's the distinction that something is or did die ???? Idiot
> Editors playing with new people's minds. Malicious bad information
> even intentionally. I have caught some of the4se creeps before giving
> out bad information and responded to it.
>
> ""QUOTE""
> they are arguing it's time for companies to adopt newer approaches,
> such as ... behavior- blocking
> ""UNQUOTE""
>
> ...You mean BUY some antivirus protection ??? to activate real time
> protection - - Duh !!!
>
> This is the result of trolls, criminal elements, idiots, plain
> newbies, and bragging rights malicious persons giving the constant
> idea of freeware security as your silver bullet. That is absurd and
> even for the most new person. Anybody new to computers instantly
> realizes that the software business is a multi-million and multi-
> billion dollar industry. You can't even miss that one on TV News
> always informing the public of the amount of trade done over the
> internet if you are not a computer owner/operator. I believe it is in
> the neighborhood of 16 billion dollars yearly or more. So point is the
> "newbie" knows better and are taking their chances and they know it.
> They know you are only getting what they pay for in the worst
> ignorance of software or computers.
>
> A little knowledge spread around stops all of this in a very, very
> great degree.


Hell, you don't even have to buy any. You can download avast for free and it
does real time checking, even scans incoming email.

Of course the most common path of infection can be easily blocked by simply
turning off html rendering in your mail client. No text message has ever
infected a machine without the help of that machine's user.

cmsix

>

[cbgerry]

On Apr 8, 5:16 pm, "cbgerry" <cbge...@bluecollarpc.net> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
>
> > Far Canal wrote:
> > > Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>
> > > Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>
> > What's your problem?
>
> > The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
> > enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
> > up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
> > you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
> > ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
> > them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>
> ==========================>
>
> Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ? For the early years
> of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature
> and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> virtually all viruses and worms. All descent antivirus (paid
> subscription) has this and is knwon for it as whether it is rated well
> and trusted by consumers for protection choices.
>
> If you don't know what this is, perhaps the next time you may see the
> pop up "your antivirus has just blocked or quarantined such and such
> threat" - - - when you are browsing the web - it is a very good chance
> that is exactly waht just ocurred. Your paid antivirus protection
> using heurisitics (detecting unknown threats) has just caught and
> either deleted the severe threat as unable for it to be cleaned or
> caught and instantly deleted what serves no purpose but malicious
> intent such as a trojan.
>
> That can also happen when downloading email. Not the regular cleaning
> emails of threats and reports - but when there is a specific threat
> activated by simply downloading the email to your computer. That was
> "heurisitics" 99 percent of the time quarantining or immediately
> deleting the virus/worm/trojan - and that is what the pop up message
> was again - "your antivirus deleted or quarantined such and such a
> threat".
>
> In other words heurisitics in antivirus is half of the real time
> protection at all times 24/7 - even when the computer is shut down.

=================================</.
Maybe from the "horse's mouth" will help:

Excerpt: (HEURISITICS)
http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoff...ncobetafaq.jsp


Size matters.
Symantec is the largest provider of security software and services to
the consumer and enterprise market. Norton Confidential protection
benefits from the information provided by hundreds of millions of
users who encounter these "unknown" threats over time. Not only does
this scale help Symantec's capability to "know" about threats earlier,
but it helps improve the HEURISITICS engine to intelligently detect
more "unknown" threat variants.

What are "known" and "unknown" threats, and why is this so
important?.....
"Known" and "unknown" threats. A threat is "known" when a security
software provider learns of the particular threat, analyzes it and
develops a "signature" to protect against it. Until that time, the
threat is considered to be "unknown." Several hours, days (or longer)
may pass between a criminal launching a new attack and you being
protected from it as a "known" threat.

Protection from "unknown" threats.
Norton Confidential is the first available solution to protect you
from both known and unknown phishing/pharming Web sites and crimeware.
In addition to using traditional signature-based protection from known
threats, Norton Confidential applies sophisticated "HEURISITIC" or
"behavior-based" technology to detect suspicious "unknown" threats
which haven't been seen before. This type of protection is essential
for online banking, shopping and other activities where you are
sharing passwords, account numbers or other confidential information.

/.End.

[cbgerry]

On Apr 8, 5:19 pm, "cmsix" <c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "cbgerry" <cbge...@bluecollarpc.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176066034.635620.156670@b75g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:45 pm, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
> > Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >> PC Worldhttp://elfurl.com/qympl
>
> >> Some industry analysts are proclaiming the traditional antivirus method
> >> for detecting and eradicating viruses, trojans, spyware and other
> >> baneful code by matching it against a
> >> signaturehttp://************/crapwaretobe "dead."
>
> >> They say signature-based checking can't keep up with the flood of virus
> >> variants manufactured by a criminal underworld that is beating the
> >> antivirus vendors at their own game. And they are arguing it's time for
> >> companies to adopt newer approaches, such as whitelisting or behavior-
> >> blocking, to protect desktops and servers.
>
> >> "It's the beginning of the end for antivirus," says Robin Bloor,
> >> partner at consulting firm Hurwitz & Associates, in Boston, who adds he
> >> began his "antivirus is dead" campaign a year ago and feels even more
> >> strongly about it today. "...The approach antivirus vendors take is
> >> completely wrong. The criminals working to release these viruses
> >> against computer users are testing against antivirus software. They
> >> know what works and how to create variants."
>
> >> ..Instead of antivirus software, he says, users should be investing in
> >> whitelisting software that prevents viruses from running because it
> >> only allows authorized applications to run.
>
> >> Whitelisting products are available from SecureWave, Bit9, Savant,
> >> AppSense and CA, the first traditional antivirus vendor to see the
> >> light, in Bloor's view.
>
> > ========================>
>
> > They mean "heurisitics" in all descent antivirus paid protection ?
> > Duh.... heurisitics. This is activated meaning real time protection in
> > paid subscription antivirus software programs. Heurisitics is the
> > ability to identifiy the malware threat by typical behavior without
> > having the definitions yet written for removal and blocking of the
> > particular threat - worm, virus, many trojans.
>
> > ""QUOTE""
> >> They say signature-based checking can't keep up with the flood of virus
> > ""UNQUOTE""
>
> > ...and it never did and never will. For newbies these idiot editors
> > are writing to (and I am not the only one recognizing this) - for
> > newbies / novice information here, the writer is calling a system scan
> > with your antivirus as "signature-based checking" - like duh a-hole.
> > Why would you do a scan, find and remove malware and then turn around
> > and say that the PC was protected in the beginning as "signature-based
> > checking" ??? How the h*ll was the PC ever protected by "sinature-
> > based checking"?"?? Duh !!!
>
> > So where's the distinction that something is or did die ???? Idiot
> > Editors playing with new people's minds. Malicious bad information
> > even intentionally. I have caught some of the4se creeps before giving
> > out bad information and responded to it.
>
> > ""QUOTE""
> > they are arguing it's time for companies to adopt newer approaches,
> > such as ... behavior- blocking
> > ""UNQUOTE""
>
> > ...You mean BUY some antivirus protection ??? to activate real time
> > protection - - Duh !!!
>
> > This is the result of trolls, criminal elements, idiots, plain
> > newbies, and bragging rights malicious persons giving the constant
> > idea of freeware security as your silver bullet. That is absurd and
> > even for the most new person. Anybody new to computers instantly
> > realizes that the software business is a multi-million and multi-
> > billion dollar industry. You can't even miss that one on TV News
> > always informing the public of the amount of trade done over the
> > internet if you are not a computer owner/operator. I believe it is in
> > the neighborhood of 16 billion dollars yearly or more. So point is the
> > "newbie" knows better and are taking their chances and they know it.
> > They know you are only getting what they pay for in the worst
> > ignorance of software or computers.
>
> > A little knowledge spread around stops all of this in a very, very
> > great degree.
>
> Hell, you don't even have to buy any. You can download avast for free and it
> does real time checking, even scans incoming email.
>
> Of course the most common path of infection can be easily blocked by simply
> turning off html rendering in your mail client. No text message has ever
> infected a machine without the help of that machine's user.
>
> cmsix
>
>

========================>
And what protection does free antivirus offer when browsing the
internet ? Free open source Clam AV has an Outlook plug-in to scan
email. But you are only talking about being protected with email
scanning. What about browsing ? That is absurd to just use a computer
for email - cell phones do that. I have never heard of such a thing
that someone pays up to and over 2 thousand dollars for a computer and
then not use it because free antivirus only scans email. Strange
answer.

[cbgerry]

On Apr 8, 5:16 pm, "cbgerry" <cbge...@bluecollarpc.net> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
>
> > Far Canal wrote:
> > > Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>
> > > Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>
> > What's your problem?
>
> > The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
> > enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
> > up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
> > you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
> > ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
> > them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>
> ==========================>
>
> Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ? For the early years
> of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature
> and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> virtually all viruses and worms. All descent antivirus (paid
> subscription) has this and is knwon for it as whether it is rated well
> and trusted by consumers for protection choices.
>
> If you don't know what this is, perhaps the next time you may see the
> pop up "your antivirus has just blocked or quarantined such and such
> threat" - - - when you are browsing the web - it is a very good chance
> that is exactly waht just ocurred. Your paid antivirus protection
> using heurisitics (detecting unknown threats) has just caught and
> either deleted the severe threat as unable for it to be cleaned or
> caught and instantly deleted what serves no purpose but malicious
> intent such as a trojan.
>
> That can also happen when downloading email. Not the regular cleaning
> emails of threats and reports - but when there is a specific threat
> activated by simply downloading the email to your computer. That was
> "heurisitics" 99 percent of the time quarantining or immediately
> deleting the virus/worm/trojan - and that is what the pop up message
> was again - "your antivirus deleted or quarantined such and such a
> threat".
>
> In other words heurisitics in antivirus is half of the real time
> protection at all times 24/7 - even when the computer is shut down.

==========================>
/.End. (And don't introduce the idiotic caveman whitelisting again !
Yeah.... let's whitelist infected programs to run idiot !)

[kurt wismer]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:46190076.8BB40BD2@Guy.com:
>
>> Far Canal wrote:
>>
>>> Exploits/viruses don't come from casual browsing of 'normal'
>>> websites. They come from wank/warez sites & spam mail.
>> Why are you so ignorant and stupid?
>>
>> Many "normal" web sites have been, and currently are hacked and do
>> serve up exploits.
>>
>> The Asus website is one current example.
>>
>> http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=2582
>
> Exploits are not viruses. They are holes in the operating system and/or
> applications.

sorry, but it's vulnerabilities that that are the holes... exploits are
the things that *use* those holes...

> Why do you feel it's the job of the antivirus now to ensure
> your computer doesn't have system level flaws?

virus guy's contention that anti-virus products don't detect exploits on
their way in is demonstrably false - there are products that do have
technology for scanning things as they come off the wire (nod32 is one
of the ones that implements a layered service provider, for example) and
further have signatures for some known exploits...

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

[kurt wismer]

cbgerry wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
>> Far Canal wrote:
>>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>> What's your problem?
>>
>> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
>> enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
>> up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
>> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
>> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
>> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>
> ==========================>
>
> Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ?

unfortunately, heuristic technology is not the savior you seem to think
it is... retrospective testing by the likes of av-comparatives.org have
revealed that heuristics are generally not all that good at detecting
new/unknown malware (which is the very class of malware it's supposed to
help with)... last time i checked i think the highest detection rate was
somewhere in the 50th percentile... of course that's better than
nothing, but it still falls far short of the claim of detecting
"virtually all viruses and worms" you made further on...

> For the early years
> of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature

2000? heuristics predate that by a rather wide margin...

> and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> virtually all viruses and worms.

someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...

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

[cbgerry]

On Apr 8, 6:23 pm, kurt wismer <k...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> cbgerry wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
> >> Far Canal wrote:
> >>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
> >>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
> >> What's your problem?
>
> >> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
> >> enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
> >> up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
> >> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
> >> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
> >> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>
> > ==========================>
>
> > Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ?
>
> unfortunately, heuristic technology is not the savior you seem to think
> it is... retrospective testing by the likes of av-comparatives.org have
> revealed that heuristics are generally not all that good at detecting
> new/unknown malware (which is the very class of malware it's supposed to
> help with)... last time i checked i think the highest detection rate was
> somewhere in the 50th percentile... of course that's better than
> nothing, but it still falls far short of the claim of detecting
> "virtually all viruses and worms" you made further on...
>
> > For the early years
> > of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature
>
> 2000? heuristics predate that by a rather wide margin...
>
> > and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> > virtually all viruses and worms.
>
> someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
>
> --
> "it's not the right time to be sober
> now the idiots have taken over
> spreading like a social cancer,
> is there an answer?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

============================>
That's some expected reply. Did you know that these independent test
centers lie and not me and they lie for illicit gain like magazines
they sell ??? If anybody is lying it would be them and if anybody's
head is full of it (lies) it would have to be you and not me..... and
I will tell you why.

This is easily going round and round - a round robin - and you are a
part of that. If there were labrotories with all these "unknown
threats" they use as tests to prove the weaknesses of software - any
type of test program - it would have been stolen and used a long time
ago by the underworld in malware spybots that are currently
responsible for up to 70 percent of world spam and 4 percent annually
of ID Theft in just America and are currently clocked in control of 4
to 11 percent of world computers.

The security industry is well aware of that and do know everything
possible that is used by these independents and for two reasons. Are
they attempting at some time to be running extortion by producing a
proof-of-concept scenario. Number two - are they "selling" to the
underground and what ? Would it surprise you that security software
can purposely give "false readings" to test equipment for these very
reasons ? Are you aware of anti-cracking technology that is software
as well that can be purchased and how this protects security products
against "probes" for reverse engineering and piracy ?

What you are replying to basically is the part of the discussion about
heurisitics fail maybe 50 percent of the time - even if for sake of
arguement you might call that a worst case scenario as opposed to a
conservative estimate. Specific products I have used for over four
years now were Norton Antivirus - 2 years Webroot Spysweeper and Trend
Micro Antispyware which also have heurisitics technology for spyware
and related malware. Several times I have manually inspected every
single file and registry entry in my computer looking for malware.
None was ever found though I have been hit hundreds of times.

Now according to your perspective that heuristics don't work - I
should have found at least 150 malware applications. The hits I am
talking about are not malwares that were removed after scans. I am
talking about drive by installations. Were are they ? There is not so
much as a trace present.

You said...
""QUOTE""
> someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
"UNQUOTE""

....well you can be afraid all you want but here you can stop telling
LIES as you are doing. There is NO ONE filling my head with lies - not
even me. What I have posted here is the truth - I don't lie where pc
security is concerned. I do know what I am talking about and I am a
groups owner specializing in malware removal and webmaster/creator of
the www.BlueCollarPC.Net/ website for the same which is approaching
one million hits by people who look towards information and advice I
provide as a source of their computing security needs. Not one of my
Visitors and Website Users believes I am a liar.

Now the bottom line here is that I am positively sure you will agree
that any traces or variants of threats from a couple of years ago
would finally have had defintions written for them to remove them in a
scan, that for sake of argument where "missed by heurisitics" ? Okay,
for sake of arguement ? This is what I am telling you - there is no
such thing. The products ARE that good.

You had some kind of problem with the statement about these products's
heurisitics catch virtually ALL malwares. Well they do and did. Why
would I - me as who I am with nothing to gain - why would I lie or be
wrong about that ? Who would believe YOU ?

[cbgerry]

On Apr 8, 9:15 pm, "cbgerry" <cbge...@bluecollarpc.net> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:23 pm, kurt wismer <k...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > cbgerry wrote:
> > > On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
> > >> Far Canal wrote:
> > >>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
> > >>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
> > >> What's your problem?
>
> > >> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
> > >> enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
> > >> up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
> > >> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
> > >> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
> > >> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>
> > > ==========================>
>
> > > Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ?
>
> > unfortunately, heuristic technology is not the savior you seem to think
> > it is... retrospective testing by the likes of av-comparatives.org have
> > revealed that heuristics are generally not all that good at detecting
> > new/unknown malware (which is the very class of malware it's supposed to
> > help with)... last time i checked i think the highest detection rate was
> > somewhere in the 50th percentile... of course that's better than
> > nothing, but it still falls far short of the claim of detecting
> > "virtually all viruses and worms" you made further on...
>
> > > For the early years
> > > of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature
>
> > 2000? heuristics predate that by a rather wide margin...
>
> > > and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> > > virtually all viruses and worms.
>
> > someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
>
> > --
> > "it's not the right time to be sober
> > now the idiots have taken over
> > spreading like a social cancer,
> > is there an answer?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ============================>
> That's some expected reply. Did you know that these independent test
> centers lie and not me and they lie for illicit gain like magazines
> they sell ??? If anybody is lying it would be them and if anybody's
> head is full of it (lies) it would have to be you and not me..... and
> I will tell you why.
>
> This is easily going round and round - a round robin - and you are a
> part of that. If there were labrotories with all these "unknown
> threats" they use as tests to prove the weaknesses of software - any
> type of test program - it would have been stolen and used a long time
> ago by the underworld in malware spybots that are currently
> responsible for up to 70 percent of world spam and 4 percent annually
> of ID Theft in just America and are currently clocked in control of 4
> to 11 percent of world computers.
>
> The security industry is well aware of that and do know everything
> possible that is used by these independents and for two reasons. Are
> they attempting at some time to be running extortion by producing a
> proof-of-concept scenario. Number two - are they "selling" to the
> underground and what ? Would it surprise you that security software
> can purposely give "false readings" to test equipment for these very
> reasons ? Are you aware of anti-cracking technology that is software
> as well that can be purchased and how this protects security products
> against "probes" for reverse engineering and piracy ?
>
> What you are replying to basically is the part of the discussion about
> heurisitics fail maybe 50 percent of the time - even if for sake of
> arguement you might call that a worst case scenario as opposed to a
> conservative estimate. Specific products I have used for over four
> years now were Norton Antivirus - 2 years Webroot Spysweeper and Trend
> Micro Antispyware which also have heurisitics technology for spyware
> and related malware. Several times I have manually inspected every
> single file and registry entry in my computer looking for malware.
> None was ever found though I have been hit hundreds of times.
>
> Now according to your perspective that heuristics don't work - I
> should have found at least 150 malware applications. The hits I am
> talking about are not malwares that were removed after scans. I am
> talking about drive by installations. Were are they ? There is not so
> much as a trace present.
>
> You said...
> ""QUOTE""> someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
>
> "UNQUOTE""
>
> ...well you can be afraid all you want but here you can stop telling
> LIES as you are doing. There is NO ONE filling my head with lies - not
> even me. What I have posted here is the truth - I don't lie where pc
> security is concerned. I do know what I am talking about and I am a
> groups owner specializing in malware removal and webmaster/creator of
> thewww.BlueCollarPC.Net/website for the same which is approaching
> one million hits by people who look towards information and advice I
> provide as a source of their computing security needs. Not one of my
> Visitors and Website Users believes I am a liar.
>
> Now the bottom line here is that I am positively sure you will agree
> that any traces or variants of threats from a couple of years ago
> would finally have had defintions written for them to remove them in a
> scan, that for sake of argument where "missed by heurisitics" ? Okay,
> for sake of arguement ? This is what I am telling you - there is no
> such thing. The products ARE that good.
>
> You had some kind of problem with the statement about these products's
> heurisitics catch virtually ALL malwares. Well they do and did. Why
> would I - me as who I am with nothing to gain - why would I lie or be
> wrong about that ? Who would believe YOU ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

============================>
You are a "doomsday prophet" ???

....meaning there approaches or is achieved that there is no such thing
as pc security and we should all just go back to playing
solitaire ???

Who in the hell is going to buy that or into it ??? I presume you
did ??

[optikl]

"cbgerry" <cbgerry@bluecollarpc.net> wrote in message
news:1176081345.238680.19410@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> ============================>
<snippped rant>.

You would project a more credible, coherent argument if your spelling and
grammar weren't so awful.

[Fenton]

On Apr 8, 2007, Far Canal wrote:
> Virus Guy wrote
>
>> Far Canal wrote:
>>
>>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>>>
>>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>>
>> What's your problem?
>>
>> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
>> enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
>> up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
>> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
>> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
>> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>>
>
> Exploits/viruses don't come from casual browsing of 'normal' websites.
> They come from wank/warez sites & spam mail. If people are stupid
> enough to visit those sites/open spam mail they're gotta get ****, time
> after time.
>
>

Wasn't the NFL's web site carrying a payload recently? Or maybe superbowl.com
-- something sports related and legit, as I recall.