(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:01 am
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Imported from groups: alt>comp>anti-virus (more info?)
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:43 am
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Bart Bailey wrote:
> Apr 2007 13:39:39 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
[snip]
>> according to http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/dos/ >> you will still be able to get updates for it even though development of
>> the program itself has ceased...
>>
>> that said, the defs have historically been shared between all versions
>> of the product because they share a common engine - if the engine in the
>> dos product is no longer going to be upgraded then the dos product is
>> going to gradually become less effective than it's counterparts for
>> other OSes...
>>
>> for people still using DOS itself this shouldn't be an issue since there
>> are no new DOS viruses and haven't been for a long time, but if you're
>> using windows then it's recommended you move to the windows product...
>
> What if you're using Windows, but stripped down to where it's only
> slightly more vulnerable that DOS itself?
as long as windows software will run on it windows malware will run on
it, so you're probably going to need an anti-virus that will continue to
get updated to handle new windows malware as time goes by...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
(Msg. 12) Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Bart Bailey wrote:
> In Message-ID:<evdbvr$hbi$2@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Mon, 09
> Apr 2007 07:43:17 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
>
>> as long as windows software will run on it windows malware will run on
>> it, so you're probably going to need an anti-virus that will continue to
>> get updated to handle new windows malware as time goes by...
>
> Sure, but only the def sigs for new variants of old malware,
> not new OS exploits that go something my system won't support.
no, you're don't seem to be getting it...
let's take an extreme example... you remember when macro viruses first
came out? scanner *engines* had to be updated in order to detect them -
signature updates alone weren't enough...
sometimes it's enough to just tell the scanner new things to look for
(signature updates) but sometimes you need to tell the scanner new
*ways* to look (engine updates)... i'm sure you already realize this (in
fact i'm sure you've seen me say it before) but what you may be missing
is that this is not just about OS exploits... do you use *.pdf files or
watch videos online? scripting capabilities in those have been exploited
recently and in future other types of files may prove equally potent for
malware deployment... without engine updates you'd be stuck with a
product that (despite having the necessary signatures) would be unable
to find malware in those types of files due to not knowing how to parse
them...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:02 am
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
(Msg. 14) Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Is F-Prot for DOS no longer supported? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Bart Bailey wrote:
> In Message-ID:<eveg8b$387$1@registered.motzarella.org> posted on Mon, 09
> Apr 2007 18:50:55 -0400, kurt wismer wrote: Begin
[snip]
>> scripting capabilities in those have been exploited
>> recently and in future other types of files may prove equally potent for
>> malware deployment... without engine updates you'd be stuck with a
>> product that (despite having the necessary signatures) would be unable
>> to find malware in those types of files due to not knowing how to parse
>> them...
>
> Like I said,
> I don't need to look for what can't hurt me.
unless you're operating in a closed system (ie. you don't send/receive
files of any type with anyone else) then i think you're being a bit
naive... if you exchange *anything* with other people the potential
exists for that to one day be exploited...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Home
Forums
Home
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Security