126

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: KV>> I to that anybody in this subject like also did not state that antiviruses panacea. In what then sense to ask about it here? SK> Yes as. On mine even the pair of direct statements was.  1 author: kaa.python Date: 19.11 15:28. Indirectly 2 Author: Vain Date: 21.11 10:31. And 3 more Author: AlexRK Date: 20.11 13:06., Etc. Saw statements about necessity of antiviruses. About their sufficiency (i.e. that they are panacea) statements did not find SK> thought that the computer can be without an antivirus causes latent panic envy (to the person with not braking computer not rendering tribute), passing in panic fear passing in panic laughter (as a method of removal of stress, differently or the brain blows up or in bile choke). Not-not-not, similar it is better to consider with the qualified psychologists. I the technology professional, excuse.

127

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> And now to statistican on "danger", that is the holes giving possibility of a remote breach of system. Whether and itself you are able that? UPD: I will note also that there were repeated cases when initial memory corruption/overflow became LPE or even RCE a bit later. With a raising of level of danger with any 3 to 7. 9. When their more advanced picked.

128

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: the Windows a good piece, but do not approach Russia, as have no open code. From that that somewhere there is something good but which cannot use, does nothing by bad from this than it is possible to use. The faster there will be people which organize normal office which could select the   and would saw (good sense of this word) its people independently in Russia the better. But alas money give only to those who saws in bad sense of this word, and give a little so good skilled and adult  not to employ. Here both volume and the reason. That is alas - from us at Russia a unique way - to take  and does it, on remaining money is not present.

129

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV>>> I to that anybody in this subject like also did not state that antiviruses panacea. In what then sense to ask about it here? SK>> Yes as. On mine even the pair of direct statements was.  1 author: kaa.python Date: 19.11 15:28. Indirectly 2 Author: Vain Date: 21.11 10:31. And 3 more Author: AlexRK Date: 20.11 13:06., Etc. KV> Saw statements about necessity of antiviruses. About their sufficiency (i.e. that they are panacea) statements did not find In advertizing of products  the companies speak "we protect you, trust in us, all of us make the best type", from this "the normal user" () does an output that panacea. That we also see on an example of it . But it is not told anywhere that an antivirus a little and it is necessary to apply ALSO other measures. And very little where it is said that application of other measures presumes to refuse antivirus application. Though, of course, observing them, to use the computer it is necessary thinking. "The normal user" () will not like [explicit] restriction of [imaginary] freedom.

130

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, alpha21264, you wrote: A> It was defined that the machine on inadequate behavior is infected. And how you will search where for a virus and how from it to get rid? Or format with:/s (after all it already could infect other executed files)? Antiviruses not only were used as means not the tolerance of the infected file on a computer, but also as as a sensor of a virus and "treatment" from it executed files.

131

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: V>> That's it who should write it? SK> who should? To whom should? I.e. the algorithm of determination of a doubtful place is not present? So where warranties that, Zin? (SK> the Teapot (which water cooks) is by nature deprived own will. Independently it does not creep voluntarily on casual hosts, does not swing files and does not execute them. Well the smart phone () on a default climbs, why the teapot that should not? SK>>> "Oh! And me did not tell that if I jump off about 10 floors will be sick, it THEY are guilty!" V>> well it if at you stopping in the Internet associates with  from floors. SK> "stopping in the Internet" associates with control of a difficult hardware-software complex. Equal on a level of danger with driving on road with heavy traffic. Exactly. Who will adjust it in that case under itself without use on a default, what is already adjusted?

132

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Vain, you wrote: V>>> That's it who should write it? SK>> who should? To whom should? V> I.e. the algorithm of determination of a doubtful place is not present? You start to understand. V> so where warranties that, Zin? (In State fear. SK>> the teapot (which water cooks) is by nature deprived own will. Independently it does not creep voluntarily on casual hosts, does not swing files and does not execute them. V> well the smart phone () on a default climbs, why the teapot that should not? And why should? SK>>>> "Oh! And me did not tell that if I jump off about 10 floors will be sick, it THEY are guilty!" V>>> Well it if at you stopping in the Internet associates with  from floors. SK>> "stopping in the Internet" associates with control of a difficult hardware-software complex. Equal on a level of danger with driving on road with heavy traffic. V> that's it. Who will adjust it in that case under itself without use on a default, what is already adjusted? Who? I assume, you wanted to ask "As?"? Well and so so also it is not necessary to adjust. Gave to you  IE, by default in a mode of "the reinforced safety" - use. What the user first of all does? Cries out "to May  restricted". Disconnects this mode, runs downloads . Because to itself the fool and the enemy. Because in the TV set advertizing "came  on a bank site, entered the given cards and happened nothing" neither payments, nor that, simply white screen.

133

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> Probably and  KingRoot' ?) ) Today made sampling on a personal DB of insertions , collected of different corners of the Internet (all about 500 pieces). Was interested in a demon rild. On 32 bit devices the size fluctuates within ~9500. 9900 on 64 bit 17900. 22200. And one file was sharply beat out from the general statistics 89496. Found, climbed inside - , what familiar faces - "king_iscan", "ku.sud" and also "arm64-v8a", "/system/bin/app_process" and "/system/bin/app_process64". An insertion "ZTE-Beeline_Smart_2-P172R10-LMY47I-1441630905" For those who did not understand I will explain - an insertion is built in kingroot. Which, in turn, became a telephony demon. Also can do with the radio unit everything that to it likes. To intercept and send  (silently! Without looking at protection 4.4 ), /// calls. And also (theoretically) to skip in Jav applications and to do other troubles - its interest to them is visible, and the rights root. Also 64 bit devices are visible that to it not a noise.