• CONTEST ALERT - Experience the power of DDR5 memory with Kingston Click for details

Windows 7 still needs anti-virus, susceptible to 8 out of 10 viruses

Status
Not open for further replies.

NewsBytes

In the zone
During the launch of the new Windows 7, Microsoft had a lot to say about the safety features it offered, and especially protection from viruses and malware. While it was always meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, the guys at security firm Sophos decided to put the operating system to the test.
 
Chester Wisniewski of Sophos writes that they loaded up a machine with a fresh version of Windows 7, and left all the User Account Control options at default. Then, they grabbed the next 10 unique ...

To read the full news article, click here
 

Indyan

Here Since 2003
Seriously guys, you are really gonna go along with the FUD that Sophos is spreading?
When did Ms say that you don't need an AV? In fact I guess Mr. Patka (the author) hasn't even tried Windows 7, because as soon as you start it it will warn you that you dont have any AV installed.

Is it too much to expect India's leading tech magazine to provide a valid outtake rather than just toeing what has been published by hundreds of amateur bloggers and mainstream newspapers.

This story is just a typical case of AV developers using scare tactics. Here is how the story should have been reported:
Sophos: Windows 7 vulnerable to 8/10 viruses, FUD alert
Thanks, Captain Obvious!

And oh, you guys are also 2 days late.
 
Last edited:

Stuge

Youngling
hmm well its windows .No need to get disheartenend .I'm using antivirus .So, whats a big deal .
 

chesss

mera kutch nahi ho sakta
Seriously guys, you are really gonna go along with the FUD that Sophos is spreading?
When did Ms say that you don't need an AV?
IMHO The point here is about UAC in Win 7 VS vista's UAC and not about AV . The main thing being, that unlike vista , 7's default UAC setting can be easily bypassed by malware.
 
Last edited:

Indyan

Here Since 2003
The article doesn't make it sound like that.

“Unfortunately, despite Microsoft's claims, Windows 7 disappointed just like earlier versions of Windows. The good news is that, of the freshest 10 samples that arrived, 2 would not operate correctly under Windows 7,” Wisniewski writes.

Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.

Sophos didn't even run the test on Vista. So, it wasn't a comparison.
 

ico

Super Moderator
Staff member
Seriously guys, you are really gonna go along with the FUD that Sophos is spreading?
When did Ms say that you don't need an AV? In fact I guess Mr. Patka (the author) hasn't even tried Windows 7, because as soon as you start it it will warn you that you dont have any AV installed.

Is it too much to expect India's leading tech magazine to provide a valid outtake rather than just toeing what has been published by hundreds of amateur bloggers and mainstream newspapers.

This story is just a typical case of AV developers using scare tactics. Here is how the story should have been reported:
Sophos: Windows 7 vulnerable to 8/10 viruses, FUD alert
Thanks, Captain Obvious!

And oh, you guys are also 2 days late.
+1

10char...
 

matharry

Right off the assembly line
Hi,

Thanks for sharing the valuable information on windows 7.

While many people may have an anti-virus software, these days it is always good practice to have an anti-spyware application too, as this will create a double barrier of protection and take care of all the latest malware and virus definitions.
 

topgear

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yup, It does not matters who bashes who but when it's time for gaming windows ( + PC ) rule :p

As for AV if you know what you are installing and surfing or using then there is 90% chance you won't infected by any virus in your windows pc even without any kind of AV :p
 

axxo

99.9% Idle
Virus comes through two sources, from net obviously can be prevented by being sensible while the USB viruses cant be prevented unless we use proper AV or OSS.
 

khattam_

Fresh Stock Since 2005
^^ But even that is vulnerable to viruses and malicious programs! :p

Are you sure? In 2 years of my linux experience, I've never had a single virus attack.

However, when I used to have Windows Vista and XP prior to that, my PC has suffered numerous virus infections just because I thought double clicking was the way to access USB disk drives or thought "it is a good idea not to re-download the program my friend already has". Even the latest updates of KAV didn't save me at times. I can't always work in my PC thinking about where I can get the infections from. That is very disturbing.

I haven't used Windows 7 but I think it is not a very good idea to use Windows without a very good updated antivirus. It is also better to get your computer scanned with some online scanning tool as antiviruses may also be compromised.
 

Faun

Wahahaha~!
Staff member
^^ But even that is vulnerable to viruses and malicious programs! :p

If there are then how come I never came across any virus infestations in past 4 years of Linux experience ? May be I missed some exclusive p0rn websites or may be I am yet to plug a queen virus pen drive.

But I am still very cautious when using Windows. First thing I do is to get a decent antivirus and a good firewall. Even after that I have to be vigilant.
 

topgear

Super Moderator
Staff member
You guys may not faced viruses or malicious apps in linux but the truth is they do exist. That's why anti virus companies have antivirus for linux. If they are not needed why do they release them and if they release them there are are a large chunks of customers of them for sure.

There are too much programs for windows and that's why there are too many viruses. They can infect through pirated apps ( games too ) that many people run of windows.

If you do use legitimate apps most of the times and update your windows then the chance of virus infection is too low. I've been using windows vista x64 edition without AV! along with open suse 11 in dual boot around 1 year now without any virus infection.

Now a example - I tested running NFS UG2 on linux through crossover. As NFS UG2 was not able to recognize the original CD I had to use a no cd crack to run it. But when I booted in windows my av was showing me that the crack is a malicious app !! So linux executed that malicious app but as that app was not meant to infect linux it will not effect linux.

And for linux I've using it since the era of Red Hat 9 just for fun and my love of using a different OS. That's why you can veen find a tutorial on my blog on FreeBSD :p

Malicious app creators wants to infect as much as pc possible so windows is there plaform of choice. Still there are not many users for linux as compared to windows thats why the number of malicious program is also lower but not zero.
 

khattam_

Fresh Stock Since 2005
You guys may not faced viruses or malicious apps in linux but the truth is they do exist. That's why anti virus companies have antivirus for linux. If they are not needed why do they release them and if they release them there are are a large chunks of customers of them for sure.
That is because linux is used as servers and the client computers may have Windows. Antivirus in Linux are there because they detect and delete/disinfect Windows viruses.

There are too much programs for windows and that's why there are too many viruses.
There are many programs for Linux too. And yes, too many of them.

Malicious app creators wants to infect as much as pc possible so windows is there plaform of choice. Still there are not many users for linux as compared to windows thats why the number of malicious program is also lower but not zero.
so be the real reason behind. But I am happy with my PC having no infections and I'm happy with it.

Getting back to the topic, that is a very lame step from Sophos. I think they were unable to find a total of 10 viruses that could infect Win 7, so they settled with 8.
:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom