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



## NewsBytes (Nov 6, 2009)

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 (Nov 6, 2009)

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.


----------



## ramprasad (Nov 6, 2009)

uh oh....


----------



## Stuge (Nov 6, 2009)

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


----------



## chesss (Nov 6, 2009)

> 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.


----------



## Indyan (Nov 6, 2009)

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 (Nov 7, 2009)

Indyan said:


> 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.
> ...


+1

10char...


----------



## matharry (Nov 11, 2009)

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.


----------



## amitabhishek (Nov 11, 2009)

Windows never fail to suck.


----------



## x3060 (Nov 19, 2009)

am safe with nod32


----------



## chooza (Nov 20, 2009)

Simply another MS bashing thread.


----------



## topgear (Nov 22, 2009)

Yup, It does not matters who bashes who but when it's time for gaming windows ( + PC ) rule 

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


----------



## axxo (Nov 22, 2009)

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.


----------



## Faun (Nov 22, 2009)

Antivir and Comodo. But I am on linux for most of time.


----------



## topgear (Nov 23, 2009)

^^ But even that is vulnerable to viruses and malicious programs!


----------



## khattam_ (Nov 27, 2009)

topgear said:


> ^^ But even that is vulnerable to viruses and malicious programs!



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 (Nov 28, 2009)

topgear said:


> ^^ But even that is vulnerable to viruses and malicious programs!



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 (Nov 28, 2009)

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 

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_ (Nov 28, 2009)

topgear said:


> 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.



topgear said:


> 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.



topgear said:


> 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.


----------



## shaunak (Nov 28, 2009)

If you want an OS that doesnt need AV, use linux.


----------



## asingh (Nov 28, 2009)

NewsBytes said:


> 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



This is the stupidest thing to do, and then read, and then post about. Any system, software if purposely attacked will/can be breached. Come on man, event the US DoD and NASA and our own DRDO has been hacked. Does that mean, our government stops using them. And what is Sophos not even heard of it. I never heard AVG, Norton, Samentec trying something like this. So lame. Even if they do, they do it to enhance their product -- and not bad-name another company. 

Its like me testing Coke/Pepsi for toxins, finding them and publishing them. And noobs like you posting about it. Wonder why M$ still hold such a high market share for OS. We all are dumb right...?



Stuge said:


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



Yea, of course. That is what one needs to do. 



shaunak said:


> If you want an OS that doesnt need AV, use linux.



Ya right. It is not 100% safe. And miss out on this excellent OS. Its like saying, I want a house, where no dust and particles cannot come in. Highly unlikely.


----------



## Faun (Nov 29, 2009)

topgear said:


> 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.



I have been using Windows (installed with antivir and comodo firewall) without any infections for years too. But the point remains that I have to be on my toes when using Windows. And whenever I have the choice then I prefer Linux for my daily tasks and surfing internet. I can always boot into windows when I feel like playing some window specific games.

As for softwares, there are many in Linux. I really like the exhaustive details about any activity going on in my PC e.g. iftop, iotop, iostat, nload, nmap, bwmon, vnstat, ntop etc.


----------



## topgear (Nov 29, 2009)

@ To all those who thinks linux could not be infected 

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
*help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus



khattam_ said:


> 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.



You mean to say that the server computer only has Anti-virus to scan it's windows client pc ?

But many linux desktop users use anti virus for linux to keep secure their their linux OS.



> There are many programs for Linux too. And yes, too many of them.



Yup, I know that but count it right the number of windows app will out number linux apps anyday.

That's why you will see apps like wine and cross-over was meant to run windows apps on linux 



> 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.



Yup, it's the real reason for hordes windows viruses. It's usage rate is just too high so it's virus rate is also 



shaunak said:


> If you want an OS that doesnt need AV, use linux.



That's not true. Every OS in the world can be infected or breached even if it's a custom made linux or even windows.



kanjar said:


> I have been using Windows (installed with antivir and comodo firewall) without any infections for years too. But the point remains that I have to be on my toes when using Windows. And whenever I have the choice then I prefer Linux for my daily tasks and surfing internet. I can always boot into windows when I feel like playing some window specific games.



Yup, if you are using windows with some internet connection from local lan provider than you should be very careful. 

Most viruses were written for windows so you will see most of them will attack windows but it can be prevented also. Use legitimate apps. Download softs from trusted sites. Use browsers like FF or opera whch does not uses activex.

Windows offer most easy way to use a software for example in linux you have download apps say a dvd player app or it's required codec through app get. It will download and install al necessary components but if you will re-install linux at some time later you will loose all those and have to re download. But in windows you will download most app as a single package and most of the time they conytains all required files. Just double click and install them. You can store the app package for later usage too 

But it's the most popular way for viruses to infect windows. They attach themselves to the executable files and infects pc's when those files are executed but though this little drawback exists I would prefer the windows ease of software installation anyday.

But if the security configuration of a linux box is not sert up correctly it can be easily hacked and that's why you will see most linux servers were hacked rather than infected.



> As for softwares, there are many in Linux. I really like the exhaustive details about any activity going on in my PC e.g. iftop, iotop, iostat, nload, nmap, bwmon, vnstat, ntop etc.



Yup, I know that but count it right the number of windows app will out number linux apps anyday.

That's why you will see apps like wine and cross-over was meant to run windows apps on linux 

And for details of processes in windows there are also some great tools like process explore, regmon, filemon, process monitor etc.


----------



## Krow (Nov 29, 2009)

topgear said:


> Windows offer most easy way to use a software for example in linux you have download apps say a dvd player app or it's required codec through app get. It will download and install al necessary components but if you will re-install linux at some time later you will loose all those and have to re download. But in windows you will download most app as a single package and most of the time they conytains all required files. Just double click and install them. You can store the app package for later usage too


Now whatever you said till now was reasonable, if not completely agreeable upon. This is not true at all. It seems you have not heard of/used Linux Mint. All codecs can be played out of the box. Besides, if you obtain the DVD Distro versions, then it comes with the entire repository, so no need to apt-get from the internet. How many Windows versions since XP came in a single CD version? Extremely few, if any. Linux on the other hand has CD distros for all versions. So its lightweight and you custom install whatever you want to. You can simply download the repository from the official website, burn it to a DVD and then use the DVD as repo. For storage you can make an ISO of the repo. Installation is as simple on both Windows and Linux. Those who claim otherwise will meet with disagreement from my side. 


> But it's the most popular way for viruses to infect windows. They attach themselves to the executable files and infects pc's when those files are executed but though this little drawback exists I would prefer the windows ease of software installation anyday.


I repeat, installing software is as easy in both. No need to worry. Since people use windows from the time they are infants, many claim that double click and install is easier. Ask the same question to someone using Linux from childhood and they would say that installing from repo is so much easier. What you said qualifies as true if you say that is your personal opinion only. You cannot make a generalised assumption about it being true always.


----------



## Nithu (Nov 29, 2009)

It'll be amazing if Windows 7 comes with Microsoft Security Essentials...
I think Windows Defender is useless...


----------



## topgear (Nov 30, 2009)

@ Krow - Yup, linux offers loads of softs to be installed as compared with windows which only installs the basic minimal OS. But different distros comes with different package management. So the ease of installation in linux does not applies to all distros.

But for windows the double click installation is true accords all versions from 98-7 ( ditching previous versions ).

So, If you are going to use linux then you have to carefully pick a particular distro for your need 

Frankly speaking - I've used Linux mint for one night only maybe on oct 2007

Yup, I heard of it that it comes with many codecs bundled.

I've used open fedora and open suse and all of them was based on rpm package management but not deb packages and it was real pain to configure fedora to use the disc as repository source. So I thought this the case with other linux distros also. But as you are saying app installation is so easy in mint I should give it a try without typing much 

- all comments are personal 

BTW, I will not discuss this futher as it is going too much off topic


----------



## Krow (Nov 30, 2009)

Give it a shot. Go for Linux Mint 8 Helena released 2 days ago.


----------



## satyamy (Nov 30, 2009)

Nithu said:


> It'll be amazing if Windows 7 comes with Microsoft Security Essentials...
> I think Windows Defender is useless...


yes Windows Defender is Useless 
I use KIS and it get disable 
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


Krow said:


> Give it a shot. Go for Linux Mint 8 Helena released 2 days ago.



offtopic : how many crows are their in city or how many release of linux are their ??? 

i already used/trailed 10-12 versions but everyday it comes up with new version


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 30, 2009)

topgear said:


> @ Krow - Yup, linux offers loads of softs to be installed as compared with windows which only installs the basic minimal OS. But different distros comes with different package management. So the ease of installation in linux does not applies to all distros.
> 
> But for windows the double click installation is true accords all versions from 98-7 ( ditching previous versions ).
> 
> ...



A newbie can install softwares under Linux via Software Centre under ubuntu & other graphical managers in other Linux OS.
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


satyamy said:


> offtopic : how many crows are their in city or how many release of linux are their ???
> 
> i already used/trailed 10-12 versions but everyday it comes up with new version



Linux has a fairly fast development cycles. New releases are dished out twice in an year for most of the common distros like Fedora, Ubuntu etc. Then for the adventurous, you have Alpha, Beta & RC releases. Keeping up with the pace can get though at times but you're guaranteed to get a strong distro most of the times with the new release.


----------



## Krow (Nov 30, 2009)

satyamy said:


> offtopic : how many crows are their in city or how many release of linux are their ???
> 
> i already used/trailed 10-12 versions but everyday it comes up with new version


Who asked you to use 10-12 distros?  Find one which suits you best, and use it. Follow its upgrade cycle if you are interested in any new features. Simple.

There are about a million and a half of my clan of KDE loving crows in the city. But then there are about 22 million of the Gnome lovers too.  I <3 Linux Mint too.


----------



## satyamy (Nov 30, 2009)

Krow said:


> Who asked you to use 10-12 distros?  Find one which suits you best, and use it. Follow its upgrade cycle if you are interested in any new features. Simple.


nobody asked me 
i was just testing for Fun and some new knowledge 
till date i m comfortable only with windows


----------



## Gauravs90 (Nov 30, 2009)

Is there any way to run mac in virtualisation?

I'm not going to buy it's hardware to learn it.


----------



## satyamy (Nov 30, 2009)

Gauravs90 said:


> Is there any way to run mac in virtualisation?
> 
> I'm not going to buy it's hardware to learn it.


you can read this

*www.geckoandfly.com/2009/05/26/run-and-install-virtual-mac-os-x-leopard-105-on-intel-clone-pc/


----------

