Lack of any security for 20% of computers

Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board. Just don't post offensive topics that are meant to cause trouble with other members or are derogatory towards people of different genders, race, color, minors (this includes nudity and sex), politics or religion. Let's try to keep peace among the community and for visitors.

No spam on this or any other forums please! If you post advertisements on these forums, your account may be deleted.

Do not copy and paste entire or even up to half of someone else's words or articles into posts. Post only a few sentences or a paragraph and make sure to include a link back to original words or article. Otherwise it's copyright infringement.

You can talk about other distros here, but no MEPIS bashing. You can email the developer of MEPIS if you just want to say you dislike or hate MEPIS.
Message
Author
User avatar
DBeckett
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 3:59 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#31 Postby DBeckett » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:12 pm

lucky9 wrote:I can foresee a time when it will be illegal to expose a computer to the Internet without some form of protection. Maybe to even just sell one without a virus checker.

I can see that happening, but I fear it would be just one more unenforceable law.
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3, AMD FX-6100 hex-core, 3.3GHz, 8G, Radeon HD6570

User avatar
uncle mark
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5360
Age: 2015
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#32 Postby uncle mark » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:33 pm

lucky9 wrote:I can foresee a time when it will be illegal to expose a computer to the Internet without some form of protection.


You mean outlaw stupid?
Desktop: Custom build Asus/AMD/nVidia -- MX-15 KDE, MEPIS 11
Laptop: Acer Aspire 5250 -- MX-15

User avatar
Utopia
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3613
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:53 am

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#33 Postby Utopia » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:59 pm

You mean outlaw stupid?

In most countries the law makers should think that's to close to suicide. They would rather do the opposite to silence all the nagging.
Henry

User avatar
DBeckett
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 3:59 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#34 Postby DBeckett » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:17 pm

DBeckett wrote:
lucky9 wrote:I can foresee a time when it will be illegal to expose a computer to the Internet without some form of protection. Maybe to even just sell one without a virus checker.

I can see that happening, but I fear it would be just one more unenforceable law.

Anyway, such a law would be absolutely pointless. In the case I cited above for example, the thing blew right past the installed and updated AV.

Of course, that wouldn't stop lawmakers from wasting a lot of time on such useless legislation. As Uncle Mark points out, you can't fix stoopid.
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3, AMD FX-6100 hex-core, 3.3GHz, 8G, Radeon HD6570

User avatar
uncle mark
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 5360
Age: 2015
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#35 Postby uncle mark » Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:51 pm

DBeckett wrote:Anyway, such a law would be absolutely pointless. In the case I cited above for example, the thing blew right past the installed and updated AV.


No one is immune, and anyone can get bit. The question is, how much time, energy, and resources can/will one invest to limit one's vulnerability to the greatest extent? Where does the point of diminishing returns take over? It's like Zeno's Paradox -- you can approach a fully secure environment, but never quite get there.

Let's say the MSE is 90% effective, and MBAM Pro is 90% effective on the remaining 10%. That's 99%. Pretty darn good. But maybe Avira is 95% effective, and MBAM is still 90% effective on the remaining 5%. You end up at 99.5%. If MSE has benefits over Avira other than its detection rate (fewer false positives, for example, or ease of use, i.e. set-and-forget), do they outweigh that 0.5% increase in presumed protection?

In my opinion, for the users I support, they do.

Of course, if it wasn't for freaking iTunes, I'd have my users running Linux. If I'm going to put myself out of business by locking down Windows installs to the point that they never get infected, I might as well do it right.
Desktop: Custom build Asus/AMD/nVidia -- MX-15 KDE, MEPIS 11
Laptop: Acer Aspire 5250 -- MX-15

User avatar
zeeone
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:50 am

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#36 Postby zeeone » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:38 pm

And where have we heard this before?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18288710
Research, Research, Research, Before You Walk The Plank.
Registered Linux User # 398829

User avatar
lucky9
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 12366
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:54 am

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#37 Postby lucky9 » Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:52 am

Perhaps something like a Drivers License? Required before you can legally connect? That doesn't fix stoopid but it might help the simply non-enlightened.
Yes, even I am dishonest. Not in many ways, but in some. Forty-one, I think it is.
--Mark Twain

User avatar
JimC
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1569
Age: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#38 Postby JimC » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:17 pm

uncle mark wrote:
DBeckett wrote:Let's say the MSE is 90% effective, and MBAM Pro is 90% effective on the remaining 10%. That's 99%. Pretty darn good. But maybe Avira is 95% effective, and MBAM is still 90% effective on the remaining 5%. You end up at 99.5%. If MSE has benefits over Avira other than its detection rate (fewer false positives, for example, or ease of use, i.e. set-and-forget), do they outweigh that 0.5% increase in presumed protection?


Too many assumptions. There may be no extra detection using it along with MSE until your system is already infected with something missed by them. ;-)

Actually, the last detection test of Malwarebytes I saw (granted it was a couple of years back) showed that Malwarebytes was nowhere near as good as most of the mainstream AV products (only detecting something like 77% of the samples used for tests).

It's just a lot better than most at malware removal (and detection of stuff that shouldn't be running in memory). It was especially bad with root kits. That may have changed by now. But, I wouldn't assume that it detects any more than other products (just because you're using more than one product doesn't mean that you have a higher overall detection rate). It's just better at getting rid of stuff that others don't see with an already infected system (as malware can more easily hide from many AV scanners and Malwarebytes is better at finding them when they're trying to hide than some products around).

But, as the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". So, it's best not to get infected to begin with, so that you don't need products like Malwarebytes to help out. ;-)

User avatar
DBeckett
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 3:59 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#39 Postby DBeckett » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:51 pm

JimC wrote:But, as the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". So, it's best not to get infected to begin with, so that you don't need products like Malwarebytes to help out. ;-)

As the old saying goes, "Easier said than done."

Hence, this thread.
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3, AMD FX-6100 hex-core, 3.3GHz, 8G, Radeon HD6570

User avatar
JimC
Forum Guide
Forum Guide
Posts: 1569
Age: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: Lack of any security for 20% of computers

#40 Postby JimC » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:17 pm

I do it the cautious way...

See the products I'm using in my previous posts, where I have multiple AV programs used for detection, as well as the Comodo Firewall on top of that (which basically looks at program behavior and requires my OK for virtually anything a new program wants to do). IOW, it's a "white list" approach versus using a "black list" approach that you'd get with signature only based detection.

Basically, it's treating any program as "guilty until proven innocent", so that virtually anything a new program wants to do (updating registry entries, comm settings, etc.) requires my OK until the system "learns" my answers and lets it work normally. That results in more warning screens that I have to OK with new programs. But, I'd rather put up with the extra warnings versus risking a malware infection because something is modifying system files and settings without my knowledge that isn't caught by other AV products I'm running.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests