Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Test, Windows 7 Vulnerable To 8 Out of 10 Viruses

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the take-your-shots dept.

Security 843

As Windows 7's market share passes 3.6%, up from 1.9% the day before launch, llManDrakell notes an experiment they did over at Sophos. They installed Windows 7 on a clean machine — with no anti-virus protection — with User Access Control in its default configuration. They threw at it the next 10 virus/worm samples that came in the door. Seven of them ran; UAC stopped only one baddie that had run in the absense of UAC. "Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7."

cancel ×

843 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not News!! (2, Insightful)

Kohenkatz (1166461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968626)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get. Especially with the number of good free anti-virus programs available for Windows, there is no excuse not to have one either way. I use Avast Home Edition. It's free (just registration required), fast, and small-footprint. Even if 9/10 viruses would be blocked by UAC, an anti-virus program that blocks the last one is worth it.

Re:Not News!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968706)

Well, if they'd used a fully updated version of Sophos how many would have gotten through?

Re:Not News!! (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968714)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get

Sure - just that you won't get a virus by running linux. I have yet (in over a decade of tending linux and bsd servers) had a single machine get infected.

Lesson learned - friends don't let friends run Windows.

Re:Not News!! (5, Insightful)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968812)

I have yet (in over a decade of tending windows and NT servers) had a single machine get infected.

Lesson learned - Give the same system rights to your windows users as your Linux users have, and they can't get infected even if they wanted to.

Re:Not News!! (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968988)

Lesson learned - Give the same system rights to your windows users as your Linux users have, and they can't get infected even if they wanted to.

The corollary to that rule is that many applications won't run because they're poorly architected and require administrative rights to run. Oh, sure, you can finagle around with permissions and get many of them to run, but is it really worth the time to work around broken software? (running Windows which itself is broken notwithstanding)

Re:Not News!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969096)

And by the same token, getting the programs you need to run (which were designed for Windows) on Linux requires far more finagling, assuming you can get them to run at all. Seems we're at an impasse.

Re:Not News!! (2, Insightful)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969108)

Getting the sound card, network card, and multibutton trackball working on my Linux machine took plenty of finagling too. Just sayin', neither this cast iron pot nor kettle are LeCresuet red - they look black to me...

Re:Not News!! (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969058)

I have yet (in over a decade of tending windows and NT servers) had a single machine get infected.

Let's be clear here (and the same is true for anyone running Linux), you don't know that none of your machines were infected. You know thatyou never discovered an infection.

Re:Not News!! (4, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969060)

As a Windows (and Unix) System Administrator dealing with numerous users of the 'average' type, I must say giving users limited rights only work if the programs they need to run can do so within those rights.

We deal with a lot of industry specific software (ie. badly produced software) and many of the users need to have full access to absolutely everything in order for it to work, including mapped drives to the data!

Some of the users I support are absolutely mind-numbingly stupid. You tell them over and over to NOT do something and they do it again. You try and educate them on attachments and safe web browsing, and they don't care! Many of them will try all the risky things at work that they wouldn't do at home - because they know if they screw up their home computers they'll have to pay to get it fixed. At work, I fix them, someone else pays.

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968862)

so you are saying because it has never happened to you that it is impossible for it to ever happen to anyone?

the only reason there aren't many viruses for linux is because it isn't popular enough. virus makers don't want to target a platform that is only used by a handful of people. in a way it's security through obscurity, though in this case the obscurity is the operating system itself.

Re:Not News!! (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968910)

As have I, yet I run Windows. This is all nice little anecdotal evidence, but it all boils down to smart web browsing.

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969056)

I've run windows, linux, unix, mac, osx (yes, idiots I differentiate between classic and osx) for over a decade. I've had one. One. Oops, my personal bad as I wasn't paying attention when *I* wrote a chunk of code. Watch what you browse, keep the network locked up, and don't download anything you don't explicitly trust.

Otherwise, welcome to crapware of all sorts.

G'day.

Re:Not News!! (4, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968722)

Anyone that installs Anti-Virus on their PC and expects it to protect them from their own stupidity deserves what they get.

Users (1)

awfulshot (807456) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968828)

It's all the user. I run without anti-virus and the last virus I got was in 2004. Just keep a firewall and don't go to random websites and download sketchy files.

Re:Not News!! (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968732)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

Yeah? Can you point to ONE virus in the wild that has ever bitten any Mac or Linux user? Trojans don't count. Install Linux on your Windows box and you do NOT need any antivirus (unless you boot into the Windows side), provided you're not stupid enough to run an executable from an untrusted source.

Re:Not News!! (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968948)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

Yeah? Can you point to ONE virus in the wild that has ever bitten any Mac or Linux user? Trojans don't count. Install Linux on your Windows box and you do NOT need any antivirus (unless you boot into the Windows side), provided you're not stupid enough to run an executable from an untrusted source.

That's more or less exactly the same situation in the Windows world. The only infections I've seen in the past 5 years are from people (or more commonly, their children) downloading dodgy stuff, usually from porn sites.

Re:Not News!! (3, Informative)

Kohenkatz (1166461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968950)

Yeah? Can you point to ONE virus in the wild that has ever bitten any Mac or Linux user?

Yes, I know it's from 2006. But it answers your question: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946 [internetnews.com]

Re:Not News!! (4, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969086)

Remote Shell trojan [securiteam.com] (which despite the name is self replicating and therefore a virus). Designed specifically to be spread by users running trustworthy executables without the need for admin rights. And yes, it did infect a number of systems 'in the wild'

Re:Not News!! (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969094)

It isn't real clear from the Sophos article, but at a glance, it looks like 8 out of 8 of the viruses discussed are trojans (or were executed as if they were trojans, a couple of them are autorun worms, but the article implies that they just copied each of the programs to the system and then ran them).

Re:Not News!! (5, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968740)

Why would you need an anti-virus if you have a router whose firewall is worth a damn, have a browser that doesn't develop un-patched exploits like college kids develop acne and you don't click and run every damn executable bit of code you see on web site?

If you have a good firewall and secure applications, the only remaining way to get a virus is if you download it and run it yourself.

Virus and virus-checker free for over 8 years.

Re:Not News!! (5, Insightful)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968922)

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you verify that you are infection free without a scanner? Sure, you probably don't have anything overt, like a botnet hijack, but what about less obvious things like rootkits?

You should probably take your magical ninja virus detection powers and do some consulting for those poor bastards who run Norton....

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969082)

And how does a scanner verify you are virus free?

Because it tells you so and you believe it?

Re:Not News!! (3, Interesting)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969118)

How do you tell if you have one *with* a scanner? Root kits by definition do not show up, thats why they are called root kits.

Reminds me of old joke... (1)

MikeMo (521697) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969084)

This older lady tells her younger friend about how she doesn't need deodorant any more, that her body chemistry seems to have changed over time. As they walk along, the younger lady says "have you noticed how people's sense of smell kinda dies off as they get older"...

Badda bing...

If you're not checking, how do you know you're virus-free?

Re:Not News!! (1)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969122)

Firewalls [wikipedia.org] aren't antivirus [wikipedia.org] . Thanks for playing.

Re:Not News!! (5, Informative)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968764)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

Yep, I've been "asking for what I get", and getting what I ask for, by running Macs without anti-virus for almost 25 years now.

I use Avast Home Edition. It's free (just registration required), fast, and small-footprint.

Yeah, I'll pop that right onto my Macs, especially after reading these five-star reviews [cnet.com] . Five reviews with one star each makes five stars, right?

Re:Not News!! (1)

slaker (53818) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968876)

As with many other sites that have user-written reviews, most people offering a review are not qualified to do so. Editorial reviews should be held to the same smell test as is frequently given to Ziff-Davis and other large publishers; many larger companies are big advertisers.

Antivirus software is a place where it can be very difficult to sort real, effective tools from garbage, and for as much as big security vendors would like you to believe otherwise, the bigger the company, the worse the security product.

Re:Not News!! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969038)

Seems about right. Avant is pretty good, AVG is okay (with their web indexer crap turned off) CA Antivirus is somewhat OK, McAfee is a bucket of hamster vomit, and Symantec Antivirus is a steaming pile of dog shit (both personal and corporate editions).

I hear that XP Antivirus 2009 is really great though! Maybe I should try installing that? ;)

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969030)

Those "reviews" are a good example of why Mac users should not be allowed to own computers. They cause their own problems and then blame their stupidity on the software.

Been using avast! for free for 7 years now and have never had a problem with it. Never had a system get infected while it was running, even on test machines where I was running all manner of randomly downloaded stuff. The avast! developers are also pretty cool and actively participate in discussions on their forum.

Re:Not News!! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968768)

Please tell me where I can get some of that cycle eating software for my solaris 9 sparc workstation.

100% of those viruses would have not worked on a better OS.

Re:Not News!! (3, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968770)

Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

HAH! What else? Should Slashdotters buy boxes of condoms, just in case?

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968804)

(oops, accidentally moderated. sorry)

Re:Not News!! (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968782)

"any computer (including Mac AND Linux)"

There's a linux virus now? What is it's name?

Re:Not News!! (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968810)

>>Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get.

Depends. I've had bad experiences with anti-virus software (AVG caused winamp to crash when loading 100KB files, rather bizarrely), and their constant nagging, updating, etc., even when they're not causing your machine to become more unstable, doesn't seem worth the hassle when I don't actually ever run programs except those I buy. I suppose there's a chance I could get a virus from installing Crysis or whatever, but when balanced against the annoyance of avir software, it's generally not worth it to have antivirus software installed.

The real threat nowadays is hostile stuff on the web, which things like Norton suck balls at handling - Spybot S&D is really the only protection you need now.

Actually, that is sort of news (3, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968832)

I'm running several macs, both at home and at work, and the only time I've ever run an anti-virus on any of them was at the request of my ISP last month - there was a report of a virus originating from my home IP address. I downloaded and ran the latest ClamAV, and of course there was no virus on the machine, it was a spoofed IP address...

Over the past 5 years, that's the only time I've ever run a virus check. It came up with 0 viruses. I conclude that the likelihood of me getting a virus on a mac is still small compared to my XP box, which every time I run a virus check flags *something* new as wrong/suspicious. Sometimes I can even tell if the something is innocuous or dangerous...

Slashdot likes to say that anecdotal evidence is meaningless (which of course it is), but when a sufficiently large collection of anecdotes all say the same thing, we call that consensus. The general consensus is (I believe) that Macs are a lot less likely to be infected than Windows boxes, so your 'Anyone who uses any computer (including Mac AND Linux) without anti-virus is asking for what they get' statement is in fact news to me.

Simon

Re:Not News!! (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968888)

No, people who run shit they shouldn't are asking for what they get.

I don't run a real-time scanner, it's too much of a resource hog, I do let AV do an overnight scan once a week though. I've done this for years and never had a virus. Why? Because I don't run shit I know may not be safe to run. I do not open attachments I was not expecting to recieve.

It's not as if AV software is even that effective anyway, even when it does detect threats half the time it fails miserably at dealing with it and just gives the option of deleting, and sometimes some AV software doesn't even manage that. The paradigm used for AV software is that which has been used for a couple of decades, and it never even worked particularly effectively back then, let alone now that viruses have evolved whilst AV software really hasn't. Again, the best option is really to cover all the attack vectors - don't run executables you don't trust, don't have Javascript enabled on sites you can't be sure are safe, don't open attachments you weren't expecting and so on.

Re:Not News!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969024)

Why flamebait?

And this is news... why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968632)

I don't think Microsoft ever claimed you wouldn't need to run antivirus did they? Besides, it would hurt their virus scanner market share.

What's new? (2, Funny)

arctic19 (1578959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968634)

Is this supposed to be a surprise?

Not suprising (3, Informative)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968644)

For one, they watered down UAC. Second, UAC won't do anything if the virus simply attaches itself to your user account, instead of the whole system. UAC is supposed to help keep malware gaining admin rights and infecting your system, not to stop it from running.

Re:Not suprising (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968796)

For one, they watered down UAC

I did in fact RTFA, and they did NOT "water it down"; they ran it in its default configuration.

Re:Not suprising (2, Informative)

bakawolf (1362361) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968834)

Microsoft did, due to all the complaints from vista.

Re:Not suprising (2, Informative)

SparkEE (954461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968896)

I believe the GP meant they=MS, not they=Sophos

MS did by default (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968940)

So in Vista, UAC had only two settings: On and off. When it was on the system functioned with real separate privileges. You had to escalate to perform administrative actions. Ok well people bitched and whined and bitched and whined about that since you had to do it for things like changing file permissions or accessing system control panels. Thus Microsoft relented and watered it down for 7, having two settings in between on and off. It is set to one of those by default. More or less it asks for permissions for a program trying to get admin access, but not a user initiated operation.

Re:Not suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968942)

I think the previous post was saying *Microsoft* watered down the UAC because of how annoying it was in Vista. Not the people running the test.

I'm shocked! (5, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968646)

Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.

Re:I'm shocked! (4, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968678)

This is /. 8 out of 10 people here will only ever have sex with their right hand.
And the other 2 with their left hand. :)

Re:I'm shocked! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968838)

So just like linux and mac we will not get a virus.

Re:I'm shocked! (5, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968864)

What about ambidextrous people. I'm just asking.

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968966)

Dual booting you insensitive clod!

Re:I'm shocked! (1, Funny)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968944)

So what do Microsoft employees do with the other hand? Oh duh... flame on Slashdot of course.

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968836)

Think of it from the wife's perspective.

They've been good and faithful for ten years, and BAM, syphyllis, HIV, and herpes.

Because they KNEW their husband wasn't a dirty cheating bastard.

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969062)

Next you'll be telling me that 8 out of 10 people who have unprotected sex with HIV-positive, syphilitic, sore-encrusted prostitutes will contract some sort of venereal disease.

Not if they use a Mac, they can't get viruses.

No shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968664)

They could have at least tested it with Security Essentials . . . it's freely available to Windows users.

It's the defaults (2, Insightful)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969106)

They could have at least tested it with Security Essentials . . . it's freely available to Windows users.

And yet the post at the Sophos blog says: "On October 22nd, we settled in at SophosLabs and loaded a full release copy of Windows 7 on a clean machine. We configured it to follow the system defaults [emphasis mine] for User Account Control (UAC) and did not load any anti-virus software." The point is that they installed Windows with the defaults like 99.999% of the users out there would do.

My mom is probably a typical Windows user, and when she eventually installs "the new Windows", I'm willing to bet she'll just go with the defaults. Because it's easy. So if the default install of Windows 7 doesn't include & configure Security Essentials by default, then this test reflects what real users will see.

Sure, they could have done a followup test to install Microsoft's Security Essentials, then see how that would have fared with the same 10 viruses. But these guys sell their own anti-virus software, so I don't really expect them to take the extra step.

Was it ever in doubt? (2, Funny)

dijjnn (227302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968668)

So, for (1) Windows 7 is very similar to Vista, with a lot of code reuse, and (2) the people who develop viruses target *almost exclusively* windows, so how would the need to run an antivirus on a new version of windows ever be something you would doubt?

Nice weather we're having. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968674)

Talk about stating the obvious! MS themselves recommend running anti-virus on windows 7. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx

Interesting market share stat there (4, Funny)

tygt (792974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968682)

Windows 7's market share ... 1.9% the day before launch

Windows 7 had 1.9% market share before launch?

Re:Interesting market share stat there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968720)

Early downloads (students, those wacky Brits), Technet subscribers, betas, rc's, etc, etc.

Re:Interesting market share stat there (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968856)

I've had access to win7 for a while through my MSDN subscription, have not tried it though.

Re:Interesting market share stat there (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968750)

Businesses with volume license subscriptions had access to Win7 before it was publicly launched.

Re:Interesting market share stat there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968798)

Why not. A random selection of a handful of my friends, probably 2 in 10 of them ran the windows 7 beta, and release candidate, and one even got a gold release through MSDN before the launch.

Re:Interesting market share stat there (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969042)

yep. i'm an MSDN subscriber, been running Windows 7 for a month or two now.

Re:Interesting market share stat there (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969116)

Windows 7's market share ... 1.9% the day before launch

Windows 7 had 1.9% market share before launch?

Similar to how I was running Ubuntu 9.10 the week before it launched, nothing to see here, move along.

32 or 64? I guess 32 (1)

majorme (515104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968696)

You call this a test worthy of coverage here? The guy don't even state whether he's using 32-bit version which I suspect is the case. This won't happen on 64-bit Vista/7.

Re:32 or 64? I guess 32 (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968794)

You call this a test worthy of coverage here? The guy don't even state whether he's using 32-bit version which I suspect is the case. This won't happen on 64-bit Vista/7.

Bullshit. Microsoft made the same claim when they made the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit - "Viruses will be a thing of the past." 64 bits is not "magic pixie dust" - it's just the size of a native integer or memory pointer on your cpu.

Re:32 or 64? I guess 32 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968900)

You call this a test worthy of coverage here? The guy don't even state whether he's using 32-bit version which I suspect is the case. This won't happen on 64-bit Vista/7.

Bullshit. Microsoft made the same claim when they made the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit - "Viruses will be a thing of the past." 64 bits is not "magic pixie dust" - it's just the size of a native integer or memory pointer on your cpu.

no, majorme is right... 64-bit does make a big difference since you're not allowed (even as an admin with elevated privileges) to run kernel level code that's unsigned. 64-bit Vista/Win7 is more resilient to malware than 32-bit Vista/Win7.

Error in summary (1, Flamebait)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968700)

""Lesson learned? Don't run Windows 7."

Oh, wait, that would challenge the iron law of commercial software reviews, of not considering alternatives.

Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be... (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968712)

"The next 10 samples that came through the door". 8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine? The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box. The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.

Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968936)

The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.

But then again, it's good to know all those laid-off Microsoft code-monkeys found something to occupy their time while on the job hunt.

Re:Zero-day viruses aren't what they used to be... (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969012)

Two of the viruses were written before Vista was released.

High quality! (5, Funny)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968728)

So 8/10 viruses don't require administrator permissions and conform to Windows development standards. If only the rest of the software industry had such high standards.

X64? (1)

snarfies (115214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968734)

So which version of Windows 7 was tested? TFA does not specify. Was it X64?

Re:X64? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968790)

Interesting question, as a small OEM, we have decided unless a customer specifically asks for 32bit (or requires a media centre machine) they are getting 64bit :)

Re:X64? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969046)

In TFA the note on one of the viruses that didn't run states "Not Win32". I took that to mean that they were using the 64-bit version of Windows.

Old song (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968744)

So basically what they're saying is that you should STILL just get a Mac.

Just like the recent Apple ad,

Ridiculous counting (1)

TheUnFounded (731123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968758)

For those of you as confused by the numbers as I was:

-Only 8 of the 10 successfully ran on Windows 7, the other 2 failed to even start
-Of the 8 that successfully started, 1 was blocked by UAC

Re:Ridiculous counting/I'm in a negative mood (0, Troll)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968898)

When you posted:

-Only 8 of the 10 successfully ran on Windows 7, the other 2 failed to even start

I read it that two of the ten systems loaded with Windows 7 failed to boot. I should really have given MicroSoft more credit than that.

myke

Re:Ridiculous counting (0, Troll)

thinkpol (51932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968908)

So in other words, 8 of 10 viruses wont even run on Windows 7.

What is that saying about compatibility issues in windows 7? I wonder how many legitimate pieces of software wont run in W7... 8/10?

Re:Ridiculous counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29969028)

Sorry sir, you fail at math. 10-8 != 8. _2_ failed to start, not 8.

Firewall? (1, Interesting)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968776)

Was the Windows Firewall up? If not, how many of these viruses would've made it through the default Windows Firewall settings? Or were these all of the "double click this attachment" variety?

Re:Firewall? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969076)

Agreed, to know whether this is scary would require me knowing whether these were drive-by exploits or require me being stupid enough to run their virus.

I'm pretty confident in my ability to avoid the social networking sort of viruses. It's the drive-by exploits that I'm concerned about.

Congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968780)

On your successful slashvertisement. But Slashdot was the wrong target for it.

In other exciting news... (5, Funny)

frist (1441971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968818)

New tests show that software written for Windows runs on Windows! Copycat studies have also shown conclusively that software written for Macs run on Macs and software written for Linux runs on Linux! More at 11.

Backwards compatible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968822)

At least it proves that windows 7 is backwards compatible. (Or is it the same code with some new jacket on?)

Windows: Vulnerable to Viruses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29968830)

Er, still.

Testing Methodology (1, Informative)

Chris453 (1092253) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968870)

Were these run on an administrator account? Also what does 'run' actually mean? Does it mean that the viruses performed their full function or just that they were allowed to run but didn't cause any real damage to the OS? I would be interested if the viruses could still cause OS damage with UAC enabled on a non admin account. The article doesn't do a good job of answering any questions. The articles goal seemed to be to grab headlines.

Best anti-virus next? (1)

joevans (1504079) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968874)

So...what's the best anti-virus software for Windows 7?

Re:Best anti-virus next? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969104)

If you don't mind using something that actually costs money, I understand that NOD32 is about as good as it gets.

3.9% (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968902)

3.9%.

Three ...
point ...
nine ...
percent.

That's almost thirty nine per thousand!!!!

Take that, linux! Mwwwwahhahahahaha!

Guess what (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968926)

The One And Only Solution, kids, is to only run executable code you can trust.

I don't have the time to discuss what this entails, but I can start you off with one source of software you definitely can not trust...

More data needed (3, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968934)

Did the account set up on Vista / Win7 have an administrator role, or was it a "normal user" account? By not disclosing that, Wisniewski is only giving us half the story.

NEWSFLASH! (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#29968952)

A machine without AV is vulnerable to viruses!

News at 11!

Talk about a useless piece of FUD...

Most secure OS ev-ar (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969000)

Windows 7 won't have any of the security issues that plagued previous versions.

You can trust me on that.

Two words... (1)

jornak (1377831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969002)

No shit.

  I'm sure any other Windows OS shortly after launch is susceptible to many viruses as well.

Is this really surprising? (5, Insightful)

Sc4Freak (1479423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969014)

Viruses use security holes to get onto PCs in the first place - once the virus is running on the PC, it's got free reign. There can be absolutely no security vulnerabilities on a system and the virus usually still do what it wants if it's preloaded onto the system.

You don't need administrative privileges to do many things that viruses want to do (eg. send mail, monitor keypresses). They ran the test by loading the virus onto the machine, then letting it execute. That doesn't demonstrate that the system is full of holes - it demonstrates that the system is very good at backwards compatibility!

compatibility test scored 80% (1)

tbj61898 (643014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969032)

nice score, with SP1 they'll aim to 10 out of 10 - 100%

Backwards compatibility... (1)

Caviller (1420685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969102)

is the biggest security hole yet the greatest strength of any OS/Software. If virus writters had to rebuild for a new OS/Software each time it came out...they would almost always have to start over every time from scratch. There are still viruses from the Win95 days that will still infect XP SP3 machines (not sure about vista/7). So surprising...no...not in the least.

Whats New? (1)

Navarr (1090239) | more than 4 years ago | (#29969112)

Of course it'd still run viruses. Can you imagine the kind of anti-trust allegations that would be thrown at Microsoft if suddenly nobody needed anti-virus? lol.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?