Solved Belkin -- igNobel contender

[CountMike]

I do take information in but not with a grain of salt, but whole ton of it. You can never know what, who or whose interests are behind it.

Ah! Now that make sense. And you are absolutely correct about "hidden agendas". In fact, that is what socially engineered malware distribution methods rely on.

Take the anti-malware industry itself, for example. What financial incentive do Kaspersky, Norton, McAfee, Avira, Avast, and the other anti-malware product developers have to rid the world of malware?

Answer: None whatsoever! That will put them out of business.

Charity organizations they certainly are not. It almost make me think of a certain windows glass pane maker and kids with stones, if you know what I mean.
There was a bit of a flap with Avast spying on customers couple of months ago, doing similar thing to what they are supposed to guard customers from. After that and some of their slips with timely updates I changed to Bitdeffender (noticed similar behavior) and after that to AVG for now but will keep an eye on it too and certainly not going to put many eggs in that basket either.

 

[Itaregid]

[rant on]

These issues with Avast and others you mention are one main reason I decided to go with MSE and Windows Firewall on my W7 systems and the new Windows Defender and WF on my W8 systems. Since doing so in Oct 2009 (when W7 was released), I've had no regrets, or security problems.

Only MS, as far as I know have a real incentive to rid the world of malware. And that incentive is to stop the unwarranted and relentless blame and bashing they've been getting since the release of XP for security by misinformed or simply biased MS bashers and unprofessional IT journalists looking to sensationalize headlines.

And they do it by offering "free" anti-malware solutions. MSE/WD don't have ads trying to get us to upgrade to expensive solutions that not only cost you upfront, but keep bleeding you year after year with renewals.

Microsoft did not put us in the current security state we are in, the badguys did. Microsoft was complying (caving?) to corporate demands to keep XP compatible with legacy DOS era software and hardware. Microsoft was forced by Congress and the EU to remove their planned inclusion of anti-virus code from XP because Norton, McAfee and the others cried and whined to Congress and the EU that MS was trying to rule the world. They were, but not the point. Norton, CA, Trend Micro, McAfee and others claimed it was their job to rid the world of malware and yelled "monopoly".

That was the one word Congress and the EU needed to hear so they threated MS with a forced split-up if they included anti-virus code.

We see now, almost 15 years later how well Norton and others have done. Like I said before, they have no financial or business reason to rid the world of malware - yet the EU and Congress had blinders on.

And I note NO ONE, not even the bashers or real professional journalists predicted the explosive growth of broadband to the home. And NO ONE, not even the real security experts predicted the explosive proliferation of badguys and their malicious code - or how gullible we humans can be.

But since W7, MS has put security ahead of legacy support and what happens? Those same biased bashers bash MS because 10+ year old software and hardware is not supported. They don't blame the software developers for not releasing compatible updates, or the hardware makers for not updating their drivers. They blame MS for not building in legacy support for unsecure legacy products. They even blame MS because these 3rd party software makers force us to "buy" new, compatible versions of their products.

So MS is the villain either way apparently, but MS (and rightfully so, IMO) would rather be blamed for failing to support legacy hardware and software then for making insecure products. Too bad all these so-called wannabe security experts won't remove their biases and blinders to see the reality.

It is not just the anti-malware makers either. The big telecommunications carriers and ISPs refuse to block malware, spam, and spyware at the source claiming that is not their job. But the real hidden agenda there is they want you and me to buy more [profitable] bandwidth, bigger routers and pipes from them instead of reducing the need for more bandwidth by blocking all the malicious code BEFORE it gets on the big backbones.

certainly not going to put many eggs in that basket either.

Regardless your primary anti-malware solution, we all should have at least one supplemental scanner to make sure neither we (as the weakest links) or our anti-malware solution did not let something slip by.

I use and recommend MBAM for that. And again, since going to MSE/WD, MBAM has found nothing got by.

[rant off]

 

[CountMike]

But MS does had and still has an AV built in and I can't see any legitimate reason anybody could stifle or suppress it like it was attempted with IE in Europe, not as long it is possible to deactivate it which was not the case with IE. WD has a potential to be one of the best of that kind of SW because MS should be privy to all the deep secrets within their products. They could also pay more attention to security holes, one of them was just recently plugged after 19 years of it's existence and their knowledge of it. I know, I know, every time MS tightens security like in 8/8.1 there's people complaining about not being able to blunder about system files "like they used to" but I think it's a move in right direction. It might put a crimp in some system elasticity and customizing but like in anything else it may be a price for more security. In any case, there's nobody, not even users, that can claim complete innocence. If there was not so many gullible users, falling on all kinds of pretty obvious scams, there would not be so much or at all attacks like that.
People feel somehow protected or even isolated behind computer screens and keyboards but in some ways internet as a way of communication may be even more vulnerable that crossing the street in wrong place or walking at night thru questionable neighborhoods. I don't know who's ranting now but when I see blatant naivety some people that would not do anything similar in "real life", blunder and stumble about internet and give personal information they wouldn't give even over the phone or ask a cop for badge and credentials. It would take writing a book about people falling for a phone call about imaginary mallware and than being blackmailed into their paying to get control of their computers back.
Yes I use MBAM and other software to check for any nasties of many kinds when warranted or even do some scans with them every once in a while. Also have McShield installed for some protection of USB points of entry because I get some brought from unknown places. So I'm doing as much as possible to keep safe including keeping abreast of newest developments in malware but there is a practical limit to what can be done without sacrificing OS usability much. Must not get too paranoid, you know.

 

[Itaregid]

But MS does had and still has an AV built in and I can't see any legitimate reason anybody could stifle or suppress it like it was attempted with IE in Europe, not as long it is possible to deactivate it which was not the case with IE.

I agree. But Congress and the EU DID suppress it! And that was because there was a fear among the anti-malware industry MS would push them out of business and create a monopoly. This (fear of monopoly) is why in Europe, there is a Windows version sold without IE too - even though it is easy to make any alternative browser the default in the other versions.

It might put a crimp in some system elasticity and customizing but like in anything else it may be a price for more security.

True - but then it would be like a Mac. Windows greatest asset, IMO is it's flexibility. But that is its biggest vulnerability too. If people would leave the Windows defaults alone, there's a good chance they will never have problems. But virtually every single one of the 1.4 billion Windows computers out there becomes a unique computer within the first few minutes of being booted the very first time.

In any case, there's nobody, not even users, that can claim complete innocence. If there was not so many gullible users, falling on all kinds of pretty obvious scams, there would not be so much or at all attacks like that.

Exactly why socially engineered malware distribution methods are the most successful kind.

I don't know who's ranting now

I don't care. We seem to be on the same page so keep on ranting!

So I'm doing as much as possible to keep safe including keeping abreast of newest developments in malware but there is a practical limit to what can be done without sacrificing OS usability much. Must not get too paranoid, you know.

That's true too but one of the best ways to keep safe is to keep Windows fully updated. And I note that Windows Update is very good at doing that, if people would not disable it. But too many do. Yes, some folks have had some problems with Windows Update but the fact is, the vast majority Windows users leave Windows Update in the default setting - which is to automatically download and install updates - and they do so the vast majority of times with no problems.

We (users) are our own worst enemies, I fear.

 

[CountMike]

I do update regularly but not automatically. Spent most of my working life making and repairing automatic production machines but I don't even like automatic transmissions (professional deformation I guess). I let windows notify me about updates although I usually hear about them before their release, than I review them before installation. That's to avoid changes (mostly to drivers) that I know will make problems for me. It could be clearly seen that majority of them are security related and number is not receding and that tells me that there is a long way to go yet to utopian absolute security. Just before any major update I make a full system backup with Macrium Reflect and keep it until next major update.

 

[Itaregid]

I do update regularly but not automatically.

And that's fine, as long as you don't forget.

I do the same thing on my personal systems - that is, I have Windows yell at me when updates are available. And except for MSE/WD updates, I usually wait a day or two before installing while listening for any fallout. But I have to say I have not had a Windows Update fail on me in many years.

 

[CountMike]

Can't forget to update, windows nags me until I do, it's set to notify. Places I visit regularly show advanced notifications days in advance of regular updates and so can even be pretty certain what's coming. Started being careful about updates since XP days when I started getting wrong drivers for some more or less exotic and some not so exotic HW and few times an update broke my registration of Win7. When I inquired with MS they could not find reg violation on their side. Problem with drivers can arise when different manufacturers use same main chips for some products slated for different uses but do not change vendor IDs. As MS gets drivers from mfg.s that are mostly just basic without extended support it's quite possible that not all vendor or HW IDs are included and hence the discrepancy of drivers. For instance, MS is still reminding me to update GPU driver to v14.11 while I already have and use v14.12 straight from AMD. 14.11 drivers brake my TV card usability and I can't use them. Speaking of TV card, MS drivers are wrong about them too. That's a bit of mystery too as both MS and Original drivers from Philips use same vendor and HW IDs for my TV card, both have same number of bytes, use same size and certificate driver .sys files, yet MS drivers don't work. Haven't had time or inclination to check their binaries and compare them. See now where I'm coming from when I say I want to check updates before applying them ? On top of that, few updates have been pulled back and re released by MS as of lately.
I also use Win 10 TP and it's interesting to see the differences in updates and effects after them.

 

[Itaregid]

For instance, MS is still reminding me to update GPU driver to v14.11 while I already have and use v14.12 straight from AMD.

That's AMD's fault. MS does not pick and choose or develop drivers for the hardware makers. The HW provide those updates to MS to be included in WU.

 

[CountMike]

For instance, MS is still reminding me to update GPU driver to v14.11 while I already have and use v14.12 straight from AMD.

That's AMD's fault. MS does not pick and choose or develop drivers for the hardware makers. The HW provide those updates to MS to be included in WU.

I know that but just because of it I do check versions of each. Each driver version gets unique IDs and codes are placed in registry but update obviously didn't check for that and advised me that my driver was obsolete although I know for sure that it has higher hex number than 14.11, that's for unique IDs are there for.