ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Electronics Sophisticated malware discovered after 7 years, likely created by a nation-state (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=282581)

listopencil 03-25-2014 11:23 PM
Sophisticated malware discovered after 7 years, likely created by a nation-state
 
http://internetadvisor.net/wp-conten...___ZDNet-2.png


Security firm Kaspersky Labs recently released a research paper that uncovers the existence of a piece of highly complex malware that's been in circulation for almost seven years. It's called "The Mask," which is a rough English translation of Careto, a Spanish word for "ugly face" that was found in the malware's code. Aimed at high-level targets such as government institutions, embassies and large energy corporations, Kaspersky says "The Mask" has already claimed nearly 380 unique victims (with more than 1,000 IPs) in 31 countries that include China, France, Germany, the UK and the US. Kaspersky first spotted it in a spear phishing email campaign that entices the recipient over to malicious websites disguised as news sites like The Guardian and the Washington Post.

Kaspersky reports that the malware is extremely sophisticated, with a set of tools that include a rootkit, a bootkit, versions that'll affect 32- and 64-bit Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and possibly even mobile operating systems like Android and iOS. Once it gets its hooks into your system, it can be used to hijack all your communication channels and snatch everything from Skype conversations to sensitive encryption keys. It's also very difficult to detect. Due to the level of finesse found in the malware, Kaspersky concludes that "The Mask" was very likely created by a nation-state, much like Stuxnet and Duqu. As to which nation-state that is, the security firm doesn't know, but says it's probably one that is Spanish-speaking based on the code's language. Intrigued? Go on and hit the PDF link here to get the full rundown of what Kaspersky discovered.


http://www.securelist.com/en/downloa...emask_v1.0.pdf

htismaqe 03-26-2014 08:35 AM
I'm not clicking on that link.

beach tribe 03-26-2014 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10517616)
I'm not clicking on that link.
My thoughts exactly.

patteeu 03-26-2014 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10517616)
I'm not clicking on that link.
ROFL

planetdoc 03-26-2014 11:37 AM
us govt opened up pandora's box by weaponizing the internet. Now its a free for all.

patteeu 03-26-2014 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10518090)
us govt opened up pandora's box by weaponizing the internet. Now its a free for all.
That makes no sense. If the US government unilaterally declines to participate in an "arms race", it doesn't mean the race won't happen, it just means that we will lose it.

listopencil 03-26-2014 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10518094)
That makes no sense. If the US government unilaterally declines to participate in an "arms race", it doesn't mean the race won't happen, it just means that we will lose it.
Pretty much.

DaveNull 03-26-2014 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10517616)
I'm not clicking on that link.
Seriously. How about a plain text file? Or a Word document for that matter. Just don't choose the same file format that the tool likely used in the spear phishing attacks to begin with.

htismaqe 03-26-2014 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNull (Post 10519028)
Seriously. How about a plain text file? Or a Word document for that matter. Just don't choose the same file format that the tool likely used in the spear phishing attacks to begin with.
How about not ending the article with:

Intrigued? Go on and hit the PDF link here to get the full rundown of what Kaspersky discovered.

DaveNull 03-26-2014 05:12 PM
Mandiant did the same thing last year. Likely a case of the marketing department not understanding the business or their audience.

planetdoc 03-26-2014 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10518094)
That makes no sense. If the US government unilaterally declines to participate in an "arms race", it doesn't mean the race won't happen, it just means that we will lose it.
nope. you dont have to use those offensive capabilities like the US did with stuxnet. Its like saying that since the US has nuclear weapons than they should go ahead and use it.

1. The US declared cyberattacks an act of war.

2. US undermined this position with the Stuxnet and Flame virus.

3. Instead of working to make US interests more secure, the US government has worked to cripple and backdoor hardware and software. This makes US companies and infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

4. US finds and gather 0-day exploits and vulnerabilities for offensive attacks, but fail to tell US companies so that they may fix their vulnerabilities....once again making them more vulnerable to attack.

America has been so busy with offensive capabilities and an cybe offensive arms race that they have neglected defense.

listopencil 03-26-2014 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
nope. you dont have to use those offensive capabilities like the US did with stuxnet. Its like saying that since the US has nuclear weapons than they should go ahead and use it.

1. The US declared cyberattacks an act of war.

2. US undermined this position with the Stuxnet and Flame virus.

3. Instead of working to make US interests more secure, the US government has worked to cripple and backdoor hardware and software. This makes US companies and infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

4. US finds and gather 0-day exploits and vulnerabilities for offensive attacks, but fail to tell US companies so that they may fix their vulnerabilities....once again making them more vulnerable to attack.

America has been so busy with offensive capabilities and an cybe offensive arms race that they have neglected defense.
Why not do both?

planetdoc 03-26-2014 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil (Post 10519314)
Why not do both?
Patching vulnerabilities could undermine your own offensive capabilties assuming that your target patches vulnerabilities you have made public.

Although the US could gather cyber weapons, using them such as they have with stuxnet and Flame lead to the arms-race.

Its like the idea of mutually assured destruction (aka MAD). No one uses nukes because they are scared others will too. After the US used cyberweapons, now plenty of others are as well.

The worst part about all of this is that the US is more technologically advanced than most (if not all) other countries, and thus are the most vulnerable to cyberattacks. They have neglected defending the homeland to go on the offensive.

planetdoc 03-26-2014 07:55 PM
Stuxnet will come back to Haunt us

Quote:
THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush’s presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory.

It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyberweaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyberweapons outside any regulatory framework.

There is no international treaty or agreement restricting the use of cyberweapons, which can do anything from controlling an individual laptop to disrupting an entire country’s critical telecommunications or banking infrastructure. It is in the United States’ interest to push for one before the monster it has unleashed comes home to roost.

Stuxnet was originally deployed with the specific aim of infecting the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Iran. This required sneaking a memory stick into the plant to introduce the virus to its private and secure “offline” network. But despite Natanz’s isolation, Stuxnet somehow escaped into the cyberwild, eventually affecting hundreds of thousands of systems worldwide.

This is one of the frightening dangers of an uncontrolled arms race in cyberspace; once released, virus developers generally lose control of their inventions, which will inevitably seek out and attack the networks of innocent parties. Moreover, all countries that possess an offensive cyber capability will be tempted to use it now that the first shot has been fired.

Until recent revelations by The New York Times’s David E. Sanger, there was no definitive proof that America was behind Stuxnet. Now computer security experts have found a clear link between its creators and a newly discovered virus called Flame, which transforms infected computers into multipurpose espionage tools and has infected machines across the Middle East.

The United States has long been a commendable leader in combating the spread of malicious computer code, known as malware, that pranksters, criminals, intelligence services and terrorist organizations have been using to further their own ends. But by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility.

Flame circulated on the Web for at least four years and evaded detection by the big antivirus operators like McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky Labs and F-Secure — companies that are vital to ensuring that law-abiding consumers can go about their business on the Web unmolested by the army of malware writers, who release nasty computer code onto the Internet to steal our money, data, intellectual property or identities. But senior industry figures have now expressed deep worries about the state-sponsored release of the most potent malware ever seen.

During the cold war, countries’ chief assets were missiles with nuclear warheads. Generally their number and location was common knowledge, as was the damage they could inflict and how long it would take them to inflict it.

Advanced cyberwar is different: a country’s assets lie as much in the weaknesses of enemy computer defenses as in the power of the weapons it possesses. So in order to assess one’s own capability, there is a strong temptation to penetrate the enemy’s systems before a conflict erupts. It is no good trying to hit them once hostilities have broken out; they will be prepared and there’s a risk that they already will have infected your systems. Once the logic of cyberwarfare takes hold, it is worryingly pre-emptive and can lead to the uncontrolled spread of malware.

Until now, America has been reluctant to discuss regulation of the Internet with Russia and China. Washington believes any moves toward a treaty might undermine its presumed superiority in the field of cyberweaponry and robotics. And it fears that Moscow and Beijing would exploit a global regulation of military activity on the Web, in order to justify and further strengthen the powerful tools they already use to restrict their citizens’ freedom on the Net. The United States must now consider entering into discussions, anathema though they may be, with the world’s major powers about the rules governing the Internet as a military domain.

Any agreement should regulate only military uses of the Internet and should specifically avoid any clauses that might affect private or commercial use of the Web. Nobody can halt the worldwide rush to create cyberweapons, but a treaty could prevent their deployment in peacetime and allow for a collective response to countries or organizations that violate it.

Technical superiority is not written in stone, and the United States is arguably more dependent on networked computer systems than any other country in the world. Washington must halt the spiral toward an arms race, which, in the long term, it is not guaranteed to win.
an old saying applies here, "those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones." Stuxnet and Flame were big stones.

patteeu 03-26-2014 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
nope. you dont have to use those offensive capabilities like the US did with stuxnet. Its like saying that since the US has nuclear weapons than they should go ahead and use it.

1. The US declared cyberattacks an act of war.

2. US undermined this position with the Stuxnet and Flame virus.

3. Instead of working to make US interests more secure, the US government has worked to cripple and backdoor hardware and software. This makes US companies and infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

4. US finds and gather 0-day exploits and vulnerabilities for offensive attacks, but fail to tell US companies so that they may fix their vulnerabilities....once again making them more vulnerable to attack.

America has been so busy with offensive capabilities and an cybe offensive arms race that they have neglected defense.
I'm not sure why you think you know that.

patteeu 03-26-2014 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519336)
Patching vulnerabilities could undermine your own offensive capabilties assuming that your target patches vulnerabilities you have made public.

Although the US could gather cyber weapons, using them such as they have with stuxnet and Flame lead to the arms-race.

Its like the idea of mutually assured destruction (aka MAD). No one uses nukes because they are scared others will too. After the US used cyberweapons, now plenty of others are as well.

The worst part about all of this is that the US is more technologically advanced than most (if not all) other countries, and thus are the most vulnerable to cyberattacks. They have neglected defending the homeland to go on the offensive.
Again, where do you get your confidence? What makes you think the US used cyberweapons first? Or that others wouldn't have acted without the US acting first?

planetdoc 03-27-2014 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519623)
I'm not sure why you think you know that.
Evidence made available to the public.

It doesnt sound like you are disagreeing with anything I said, just wondering how I know. All of this is common knowledge at this point, but if there is a part of my post you disagree with, than CLEARLY let me know. I really dont feel like walking you through this when its readily available via a simple google search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519625)
Again, where do you get your confidence? What makes you think the US used cyberweapons first?
Little Boy used against Hiroshima, was the first KNOWN deployment of an atomic bomb. Could another country have secretly acquired and deployed one first? sure, but their is no evidence of that and the idea is nearly statistically improbable.

That is the same with cyberweapons deployed by Operation Olympic Games.

link
Quote:
researchers at Symantec have uncovered a version of the Stuxnet computer virus that was used to attack Iran's nuclear program in November 2007, being developed as early as 2005, when Iran was still setting up its uranium enrichment facility.
you are going to be hard pressed to find a deployment of a cyberweapon by a nation state before that time frame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519623)
Or that others wouldn't have acted without the US acting first?
There is no proof that another country wouldnt have deployed atomic and plutonium weapons before the US. Since US deployment in world war II, there has been an arms race to acquire nuclear weapons because it is thought of as the "great equalizer."

Same can be said about cyberweapons. There is no proof that another country wouldn't have acted first, but the fact that the US has, led to a race by other countries to have similar capabilities.

htismaqe 03-27-2014 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
3. Instead of working to make US interests more secure, the US government has worked to cripple and backdoor hardware and software. This makes US companies and infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

4. US finds and gather 0-day exploits and vulnerabilities for offensive attacks, but fail to tell US companies so that they may fix their vulnerabilities....once again making them more vulnerable to attack.
That's because, to the NSA, American companies are potential enemies. Everybody is a potential enemy actually.

The former head of the NSA Cyber program, General Keith Alexandar, was a well known paranoid megalomaniac...

Amnorix 03-27-2014 08:21 AM
Stunningly naive, in my view, to think that other countries wouldn't use cyberweapons if the US hadn't done it first.

I also don't understand why/how the NSA controls whether privately developed software has backdoors, etc. I doubt Microsoft etc. would be very receptive to the NSA approaching them to do that.

htismaqe 03-27-2014 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 10519898)
I also don't understand why/how the NSA controls whether privately developed software has backdoors, etc. I doubt Microsoft etc. would be very receptive to the NSA approaching them to do that.
The government has all kinds of handshake agreements in this arena. Microsoft is as complicit as any company.

One of the few that doesn't cooperate is Google (largely because they have world domination goals of their own that they don't want to share) and the government straight up went after them.

loochy 03-27-2014 08:37 AM
omg no wai

1000 ips? that's it?

patteeu 03-27-2014 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519742)
Evidence made available to the public.

It doesnt sound like you are disagreeing with anything I said, just wondering how I know. All of this is common knowledge at this point, but if there is a part of my post you disagree with, than CLEARLY let me know. I really dont feel like walking you through this when its readily available via a simple google search.
I find your confidence in these paranoid, blame-America theories of yours fascinating. I was curious how you come by it. I disagree with your entire theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519742)
Little Boy used against Hiroshima, was the first KNOWN deployment of an atomic bomb. Could another country have secretly acquired and deployed one first? sure, but their is no evidence of that and the idea is nearly statistically improbable.

That is the same with cyberweapons deployed by Operation Olympic Games.

link
Cyber warfare is often a bit more subtle than a nuclear bomb. It would be tough to miss news of a nuclear bomb detonation, but cyber attacks don't make the same splash if they're even disclosed publicly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519742)
you are going to be hard pressed to find a deployment of a cyberweapon by a nation state before that time frame.
It took me one google search to find this wikipedia entry:

Quote:
A 2008 article in the Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies by Jason Fritz alleges that the Chinese government from 1995 to 2008 was involved in a number of high profile cases of espionage, primarily through the use of a "decentralized network of students, business people, scientists, diplomats, and engineers from within the Chinese Diaspora".[28] A defector in Belgium, purportedly an agent, claimed that there were hundreds of spies in industries throughout Europe, and on his defection to Australia Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin said there were over 1,000 such in that country. In 2007, a Russian executive was sentenced to 11 years for passing information about the rocket and space technology organization to China. Targets in the United States have included ‘aerospace engineering programs, space shuttle design, C4ISR data, high-performance computers, Nuclear weapon design, cruise missile data, semiconductors, integrated circuit design, and details of US arms sales to Taiwan’.[28]

While China continues to be held responsible for a string of cyber-attacks on a number of public and private institutions in the United States, India, Russia, Canada, and France, the Chinese government denies any involvement in cyber-spying campaigns. The administration maintains the position that China is not the threat but rather the victim of an increasing number of cyber-attacks. Most reports about China's cyber warfare capabilities have yet to be confirmed by the Chinese government.[29]
I know I won't convince you of anything here, but I definitely think your theory that the US opened a pandora's box that hadn't previously been opened with Stuxnet is wrong and I think the information you rely on for your confidence is feeble. I'm sure that in the end, we'll just have to agree to disagree again.

planetdoc 03-27-2014 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 10519898)
Stunningly naive, in my view, to think that other countries wouldn't use cyberweapons if the US hadn't done it first.
once again, one can substitute the word "nuclear" for "cyber." The previous deterent was that would be considered an "act of war."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 10519898)
I also don't understand why/how the NSA controls whether privately developed software has backdoors, etc.
an example would be the NSA paying RSA to implement (and make default) the weakened random number generator Dual EC BRG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 10519898)
I doubt Microsoft etc. would be very receptive to the NSA approaching them to do that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-of-firms.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft and other software or Internet security companies have been aware that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments, according to two U.S. officials. Microsoft doesn’t ask and can’t be told how the government uses such tip-offs, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tion-user-data
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption, according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
There has also been speculation that NSA paid microsoft to backdoor skype. Prior to MS purchase of skype in 2011 for $8.5 billion, skype used a decentralized "p2p" system. After MS purchase it became centralized, and its ability to comply with PRISM tripled.

htismaqe 03-27-2014 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519948)
I find your confidence in these paranoid, blame-America theories of yours fascinating. I was curious how you come by it. I disagree with your entire theory.
Regardless of who did it first, the US has been involved in some very nefarious cyberattacks, some against US companies.

planetdoc 03-27-2014 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519948)
I find your confidence in these paranoid, blame-America theories of yours fascinating. I was curious how you come by it. I disagree with your entire theory.
ok. will walk you through it.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...p88suCocB8b2DA

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
1. The US declared cyberattacks an act of war.

2. US undermined this position with the Stuxnet and Flame virus.
already linked the first. US originally said that a cyberattack is an act of war. Than Hayden said stuxnet is "not an act of war." Thus the position was undermined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
3. Instead of working to make US interests more secure, the US government has worked to cripple and backdoor hardware and software. This makes US companies and infrastructure more vulnerable to attack.

4. US finds and gather 0-day exploits and vulnerabilities for offensive attacks, but fail to tell US companies so that they may fix their vulnerabilities....once again making them more vulnerable to attack.
already linked documents citing this in this thread. the link below goes further into the topic and provides sources.
The Currency of Exploitation

Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519948)
Cyber warfare is often a bit more subtle than a nuclear bomb. It would be tough to miss news of a nuclear bomb detonation, but cyber attacks don't make the same splash if they're even disclosed publicly.
sure, that is why it took security researchers years to detect and figure out stuxnet. That being said, there is no evidence of a cyberattack similar to stuxnet prior to stuxnet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10519948)
It took me one google search to find this wikipedia entry:
that is no way in any level comparable to stuxnet. Those type of attacks are not sophisticated and can be done by anyone unlike the sophistication of stuxnet. Its like comparing handguns to nuclear weapons.

patteeu 03-27-2014 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519994)
ok. will walk you through it.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...p88suCocB8b2DA



already linked the first. US originally said that a cyberattack is an act of war. Than Hayden said stuxnet is "not an act of war." Thus the position was undermined.


already linked documents citing this in this thread. the link below goes further into the topic and provides sources.
The Currency of Exploitation



sure, that is why it took security researchers years to detect and figure out stuxnet. That being said, there is no evidence of a cyberattack similar to stuxnet prior to stuxnet.




that is no way in any level comparable to stuxnet. Those type of attacks are not sophisticated and can be done by anyone unlike the sophistication of stuxnet. Its like comparing handguns to nuclear weapons.
What a cop out. First you said the US launched the first cyber warfare attack. Now, you're complaining because the US may not have actually started it, but they did it better. I hope we continue to be better. You're desperate to blame the US. I think your arguments are garbage.

BTW, I don't care whether one person said cyber warfare is an act of war and then a different person said it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, that's an attempt to deflect from the issue.

planetdoc 03-27-2014 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10520038)
What a cop out. First you said the US launched the first cyber warfare attack.
reading comprehension fail. Where did I say that? Here are my posts related to this statement in sequential order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10518090)
us govt opened up pandora's box by weaponizing the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519294)
nope. you dont have to use those offensive capabilities like the US did with stuxnet. Its like saying that since the US has nuclear weapons than they should go ahead and use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519336)
Although the US could gather cyber weapons, using them such as they have with stuxnet and Flame lead to the arms-race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519742)
That is the same with cyberweapons deployed by Operation Olympic Games.

you are going to be hard pressed to find a deployment of a cyberweapon by a nation state before that time frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10519994)
That being said, there is no evidence of a cyberattack similar to stuxnet prior to stuxnet.
your linked wikipedia article deals with espionage.

Quote:
A 2008 article in the Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies by Jason Fritz alleges that the Chinese government from 1995 to 2008 was involved in a number of high profile cases of espionage
Mariom-Webster (your favorite dictionary) defines espionage as
Quote:
the things that are done to find out secrets from enemies or competitors : the activity of spying
that is far different than an "attack" which they define as
Quote:
to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 10520038)
BTW, I don't care whether one person said cyber warfare is an act of war and then a different person said it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, that's an attempt to deflect from the issue.
Not at all. US claimed earlier that cyberwarfare is an act of war. Thus the consequences of it would be a physical retaliation. By doing this themselves against Iran and declaring that it isnt an act of war, than they legitimized it for other nations.

patteeu 03-27-2014 11:47 AM
Laughable.

Dayze 03-27-2014 06:44 PM
should've used Norton. morons.

htismaqe 03-28-2014 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayze (Post 10521313)
should've used Norton. morons.
Norton is one of the worst AV suites on the market.

planetdoc 03-28-2014 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10522151)
Norton is one of the worst AV suites on the market.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

would disagree....though I dont think they include norton in their latest tests.

htismaqe 03-28-2014 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10522381)
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

would disagree....though I dont think they include norton in their latest tests.
It's not just about effectiveness, it's also about ease of use, administration, support, etc.

Norton is one of the worst pieces of Windows software there is.

EDIT: That link is broken, by the way.

planetdoc 03-28-2014 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10522484)
It's not just about effectiveness, it's also about ease of use, administration, support, etc.
It would be nice if their is data to quantify that. At least av-comparitives does a good job of quantifying effectiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10522484)
EDIT: That link is broken, by the way.
i'm able to get the link to work just fine. maybe your company is blocking it.

hometeam 03-28-2014 10:05 AM
Norton is absolute shit.

Avast mateys!

Fish 03-28-2014 10:20 AM
As a system administrator, I'll throw in another opinion for Norton being complete shit. Terrible performance, bloated services, nightmare administration, sometimes impossible to uninstall, etc, etc.

htismaqe 03-28-2014 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10522505)
It would be nice if their is data to quantify that. At least av-comparitives does a good job of quantifying effectiveness.



i'm able to get the link to work just fine. maybe your company is blocking it.
I'm not surfing from work. And I'm using Google DNS. It doesn't resolve.

EDIT: It didn't resolve. It does now.

planetdoc 04-29-2014 03:47 PM
There is a new 0-day Adobe Flash bug that is actively being exploited. It affects Windows, Mac, and Linux. Its believed to be state sponsored (by the Syrian Government).

As I've said before, US opened up pandora's box.
https://www.securelist.com/en/blog/8...g_hole_attacks


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.