Sophos: Win 7 UAC Ineffective Against Malware
A Sophos test showed that Windows 7 users stiil need additional anti-virus software.
Yesterday Chester Wisniewski of Sophos said that, despite Microsoft's claims that Windows 7 is more secure than its predecessors, the new operating system disappointed in recent tests just like earlier versions. Wisniewski and the security firm claim that the User Account Control feature in Windows 7--when set at the default configuration--failed to catch eight out of ten pieces of malware.
But even though Windows 7 is more secure than Vista and XP, consumers will still need to install anti-virus software to catch all the nasties according to Wisniewski. "Windows 7 users need not feel left out," he said. "They can still participate in the ZBot botnet with a side of fake anti-virus. Windows 7 is no cure for the virus blues, so be sure to bring your protection when you boot up."
eWeek contacted Microsoft about the Sophos test. As normal, the company avoided the question in its typical pseudo-government-type-fashion and highlighted other features of Windows 7 that offer improved security. "Windows 7 retains all of the development processes, including going through the Security Development Lifecycle, and technologies that made Windows Vista the most secure Windows operating system ever released," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
Wisniewski's reports that the test did not include additional, installed anti-virus software. Instead, the company tested Windows 7 with UAC on and UAC off. Two malware samples used in the test would not run in Widows 7: Troi/Bredo-M sn Troi/Banker-EUT. Out of the remaining eight, one malware sample provided a prompt.
As we all say, the best defense against maleware starts at the person sitting behind the keyboard.
- Asus Delays Eee Keyboard, Adds Touchscreen
- Intel Atom Support Returns in Latest Mac OS X
- Google Shows How Much of Your Data is Stored
- Super Talent USB 3.0 RAIDDrive is Super Fast
- Nvidia Making x86 CPU With Ex-Transmeta Brains?
- Blizzard Introduces Buying in-Game WoW Items
- Deals of the Day: More Hardware, Laptops, Games
- Microsoft Cuts Another 800 Workers From Staff
- Tuan: Follow Me on Twitter and Forums
- EU to Offer Fileshares More Protection From ISPs
- Daily Deals: $400 Off HP TouchSmart and More
- Windows 7 Initial Sales Blast Past Windows Vista
- Ex-MSFT Employee: Microsoft Should Run Linux
- ECS Also Providing USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s Cards
- 50% Off Mass Effect This Weekend on Steam
- Bioware Details Mass Effect 2 Collectors' Edition
- Intel Accused of Giving Dell $6 Billion in Perks
- Intel Confirms, Replicates SSD Firmware Bug
nothing new to report, everyone knows windows fails without a proper AV/Firewall...
"As we all say, the best defense against maleware starts at the person sitting behind the keyboard."
First off, thank you.
Second off, how hard is it to use a spell checker?
Running no AV and going just fine myself. For 11 months now.
My bros comp is running the Microsoft AV. Be nice if Win7 actually came with their OneCare (or whatever it's called).
Wow, imagine that. A guy who works for an AV company says Windows 7 needs AV software.
Not going to argue the correctness of the statement, but just saying...
File under "Duh".
We all know Windows has a farly useless security model on its own, with so many holes to fill the only fix is to rewrite it from scratch and give up on backward compatabiltiy.
Also as others have pointed out, considder the source! Just the same as Symantec and Trend slammed microsoft's free AV as being weak (even though it stopped more of the top 100 ITW viruses than their own product).
"As we all say, the best defense against maleware starts at the person sitting behind the keyboard."First off, thank you.Second off, how hard is it to use a spell checker?Running no AV and going just fine myself. For 11 months now.My bros comp is running the Microsoft AV. Be nice if Win7 actually came with their OneCare (or whatever it's called).
You know if MS were to add OneCare of Security Essentials to default install they would get sued just like they did for bundling IE.
Hmmm.. I wasn't aware that User Access Control was being touted as a replacement for Anti-Virus. Let me check on that...
Nope - UAC has not been advertised as a replacement for proper AV protection. Next non-story, please.
Windows 7 needs AntiVirus? No way, the latest OS is 100% secure and can never get a virus, so no AntiVirus needed!
Oh wait! That's Apple's stance on OSX, not Microsoft's. My bad.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft acknowledges the need for Antivirus. Hell, when I installed the Win7 RC, it directed me to a website that offered various 3rd-party antivirus packages. And if I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has started releasing its own AV software too, right?
I mean, who ever said Windows doesn't need AntiVirus? Only someone who never connects their computer to any kind of network and never plugs in a flash drive or other portable storage into their machine.
Remember, most problems with computers happen between the chair and the keyboard.
A computer is only as smart as the person using it.
well... i see pc with sophos infected so many times. so stop bashing windows.
Kevin Parrish, it's called spell check. When you publish an article on a popular tech news website, maybe you should think about using it.
Why is a partisan "study" getting news time?
Go run http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Z [...] ,9005.html a few times and you will see the same methods used to start and install these "test" virus' work on every machine.
The User Account Control has multiple levels to choose from. When on, what level of security was on when they did their tests? Low, Medium, or High?
I've never, ever used anti-virus on any of my computers. I've never really had a problem. I've fixed a bunch of friends comps, and the fams comps from viruses. I personally feel like antivirus software is for someone who doesn't "understand" the computer and internet. Like, so, SO simple to avoid virus/trojans. If your 2 hour movie iso is 7k instead of a gig, do you think there is something weird?....lol, nah, but in all realness why bog your comp down with anti-virus software if you can substitute common sense.
I have experience with Sophos... they have no room to talk smack about anyone.
um...
I'm not sure I understand. I wasn't aware that UAC did anything to "block" malware or detect it... UAC was probably the main annoyance of windows vista, especially since regular users had no idea how to turn it off, or in windows 7's case down lower.
I turn mine off, because it's rather annoying. I keep my risk of infection down by not visiting stupid, fake, and otherwise shady websites. Also by not using stupid programs like limewire, if people still use it. and best of all, I run updated AV to actively protect my system.
Exactly! Doesn't matter if the OS (or AV software) is the most secure in the world if the person at the computer is a moron when it comes to avoiding malware in the first place.
Considering most people turn off UAC, then, yeah, I'd call that ineffective.
God, its designed to be customizable. and its designed to be customizable by scripts so it can be easily customized.
so you can have less virus prone, or more customizable, Pick One.
As normal, the company avoided the question in its typical pseudo-government-type-fashion
That kind of remark is precisely what I've come to expect from you. Apple is even worse about responding to that sort of thing, but I don't see that same sort of sideways remark coming from you about them. Their RDF must be too strong...
Microsoft just can't win. People pissed and moaned about UAC in Vista, and a lot of people just disabled it, or their "genius computer whiz friend" did for them. So for Win7 they made UAC control more fine-grained, and set it at a more moderate (less annoying) setting by default. Now they catch flak for that too. Windows urges you to install antivirus software. What else can they do? If they preinstall antivirus software, I'm sure the EU will jump all over them again.
Uhmm, go feminism?
Back on topic, I've managed to go +7 years without AV by being careful, using FF, patching often and running free scans. Why change if it's not broken?
Sounds like propaganda to me.
Windows users are just too used to the idea that they need to have an anti-virus. Sophos is just reinforcing customer perceptions.
If people just knew how to be safe. Even some AV programs can't catch all virus' I don't expect Windows 7 even if it's new to catch them all.
nothing new to report, everyone knows windows fails without a proper AV/Firewall...
that means you dont know shit about Windows. moron.
Hmm, I like the last line
Thank you.
When there is crime in my area, Should I go blame the government for "why let crimes live in our neighborhood?" Thats what cops are for.
people are too ignorant to admit that fact.
Mac dont have virus/malware? check again moron.
Living on an island vs Living in the USA are 2 different story.
Uhmm, go feminism ?
whats next ? refer to men as hackers ?
So what? UAC was not meant to be a penetrative-proof protection for malwares and would never be. Rather, it was designed to reduce the risk of getting infected, not nullify any attempts out there. Anti-malware solutions should fill this hole left by UAC and work in tandem. Of course, despite all that, the biggest hole of all is still the end-user as he/she has limitless control of the system.
Yeah, I agree with many- UAC was never meant to replace anti-virus software and such. Sure, it makes things a bit better, but it isn't the best solution. Run and AV- free or paid and you're as protected as you'll ever be.
QUESTION: What really is different in UAC for Vista vs. 7? It feels exactly the same in normal use! (I can see some benefit, but it gets annoying to have the screen blank out for a moment and halt everything.)
really, what did you expect AV companies to say?!
"Please, don't buy our products anymore. We are closing down." !!!
somehow... It reminds me of nVidia's comments on using dx10.1 and dx11 !!!
That was never a claim made M$, at least that I'm aware of. Why not throw on security essentials and re-run the test. Hell compare with whatever they offer if they have have the courage.
Otherwise this is tabloid trash talking and useless.
The reason Windows has security problems is because Microsoft thinks integrating application code with operating system code provides them with a competitive advantage. Any designer of operating systems knows that is irrational from a security and stability standpoint. All applications must be isolated to their own system space so that they do not impact other opplications or the operating system. Windows does not do that.