PC Tools reveals Vista is not so immune

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim
  • Start date Start date
Furthermore...

Does running Vista make you feel safe from malware? (ZDNet)

Another day, another report casts doubt on Vista's immunity to
malware. Do you
feel safer running Vista?
"PC Tools maintain that Vista is not immune from online threats.
Further
research and analysis has confirmed
our contention that additional third-party protection is absolutely
necessary
for all Windows Vista users" said...

5/20/2008 9:42 AM
Read more | Open in browser

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1897


Notes... "Duh"... No one who ever made a computer disk operating
system said it
could operate without conventional
malware shareware softwares - except maybe the clowns about Apple/Mac
and Linux
OS. The term "third-party protection"
means antivirus and antispyware shareware programs. Gee, I can not
remember
getting a new computer running Windows
without a Norton Antivirus free 30 day trial in it, which means even
our
computer manufacturers (Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, etc)
believe this already like going back at least to my first in year
2001. Enough
of this spin city already - BUT - this article has some
good information bits in it about Vista OS.

The point of my comments is who ever said Vista OS could operate
without ever
getting infected with malware ? So like this means
what is this author's point of reference for the story ? Oh well.....
there you
are. This was a bit immature of a statement. Really !
 
 
Dave said:
Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some
experience with this Vundo threat. I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo
have any effect on a Vista
installation.
The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords -
vundo vista 2008 Therefore every page Google finds with these three
words on IN ANY
ORDER or IN ANY POSITION will count as a hit.

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste
of time trying to find a Vista installation that was succesfully
infected with Vundo.
Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of
answering with a useless Google search.
That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just
repeating the usual rumours.
Click to expand...

Actually - no - it tells you I don't care about your search for ways to
"checkout [your] security settings". I never did. I was appalled that you
would ASK for someone to post links to sites that could infest a system -
that's it. No other motivation, no other reason for answering.
 
Dave said:
Here we go again.
You said Vundo 'sucks' . That implies that you have had some experience with this Vundo threat.
I asked you when YOU last saw Vundo have any effect on a Vista installation.

The Google search you posted contains three separate keywords - vundo vista 2008
Therefore every page Google finds with these three words on IN ANY ORDER or IN ANY POSITION
will count as a hit.
Click to expand...

<chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part of his
sig, would be more professional than to post results from a Google
general search than a Google Advanced search.

I read the first few pages of the search results and it is a waste of time trying to find a Vista installation that was
succesfully infected with Vundo.
Click to expand...

<chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search and do
your own? If you had you would have found entries such as the following:

http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more of the
links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave that chore
up to your level of interest on the subject.

Instead of answering my question you do the usual trick of answering with a useless Google search.

That tells me you have no knowledge of Vundo on Vista and are just repeating the usual rumours.
Click to expand...


.............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem solutions.

Just ma .02 cents worth.
 
propman wrote:
<chuckle> You would think that a poster who has "MS-MVP" as part
of his sig, would be more professional than to post results from a
Google general search than a Google Advanced search.
Why?


<chuckle>........then why didn't you pop over to Advanced Search
and do your own? If you had you would have found entries such as
the following:
http://www.virtumonde.net/blog/virtumonde/vundo-removal-guide-comments-10/

This was the first hit........didn't bother checking out any more
of the links 'cause I don't have the time or interest....I'll leave
that chore up to your level of interest on the subject.




............tells me that neither of you rascals took the time to do
your research properly.....seems to me that your more interest in
participating in a pissing contest than providing real problem
solutions.
Just ma .02 cents worth.
Click to expand...

I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
nothing to research - so I did none.

Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
conversation?
 
Shenan said:
propman wrote:


Duh!



I believe you should have read my further response before answering. I had
nothing to research - so I did none.

Whta 'problem' was presented that needed research in this part of the
conversation?
Click to expand...

Yeppers....more interested in a pissing contest

<plonk>
 
propman said:
<plonk>
Click to expand...

You use the phrases 'pissing contest' and <chuckle> and I am
non-professional?
That's ironic - at least.

If you are going to accuse someone of being non-professional - it helps to
act that way yourself.
 
Shenan Stanley said:
jim wrote:


Let me address this seperately...

I do not care if Microsoft survives as a business past this second. They
could fade into oblivion for all I care. was granted the award because I
happen to help people in a Microsoft newsgroup. There is nothing
nefarious behind it nor does it keep me from saying anything I desire.
Microsoft sucks in a lot of things they do - and I express this whenever I
feel the need.

I thought I discussed things quite rationally. I would be interested in
you pointing out where my point-counterpoint approach was irrational if
you feel that way.
Click to expand...

You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
less-than -honest manner ("Most percentages/statistics are made up to
benefit those making up the numbers. When confronted, it is usually
difficult for those who made up the numbers to present concrete facts
backing them up and usually easy for someone else to bend/make up numbers of
their own to the contrary. This is especially true when dealing with things
that are difficult to quantify because of the lack of reliable numbers (like
the security of an OS versus an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSs
are and what other protections may already be in place that prevent the
supposed issues from ever even reaching the OS...))".

IMHO, this is irrational considering the number of firms and people (both in
and out of Microsoft's pocket) that would call them on this. To do what you
suggested is irrational from a business point of view - considering the
stink that would surround the company once exposed.

Then, you go on to attack me - insinuating that I (for some reason only
known to you) would post articles with a less-than-genuine reason into
particular newsgroups. This too is irrational. What would be the purpose?
And, what has that got to do with the current post? If the current post's
logic or facts are in error, please point those things out without diverting
to personal attacks upon the poster.

You gave a link that listed many many articles to which I have no connection
whatsoever. And, you have given no valid reason that a person would waste
his/her time posting false warnings to a newsgroup - much less a reason,
that you can back up factually, for me doing so.

Please stick to the topic at hand if you want a response. If you would like
to start a separate thread concerning my postings to the newsgroup, please
do so.

Remember, the topic is that PCTools reveals Vista to be less secure than
Windows 2000 (but more secure than XP).

Best regards,

jim
 
jim said:
You stated that PC Tools had something to gain by making accusations that
Microsoft's products are insecure. While that is certainly true of any
Windows based security software vendor, you inferred that they did so in a
less-than -honest manner
Click to expand...

No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is "implied",
and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied anything of the
sort.
 
Rojo Habe said:
No, you inferred it. I believe the word you were looking for is
"implied", and having read this thread I don't feel that he implied
anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

So, did you not read....

"Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up the
numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This is
especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
ever even reaching the OS...)"

...in his post, or did you just prefer to ignore it?

jim
 
So, did you not read....

"Most percentages/statistics are made up to benefit those making up the
numbers. When confronted, it is usually difficult for those who made up
the
numbers to present concrete facts backing them up and usually easy for
someone else to bend/make up numbers of their own to the contrary. This
is
especially true when dealing with things that are difficult to quantify
because of the lack of reliable numbers (like the security of an OS versus
an older OS and knowing how prevalent those OSes are and what other
protections may already be in place that prevent the supposed issues from
ever even reaching the OS...)"

...in his post, or did you just prefer to ignore it?

jim
Click to expand...

There's nothing there to imply anybody's being "less than honest". They're
just doing what all businesses do and interpreting stats to suit their own
ends.
 
Back
Top