4 ms·

Just another nail in the coffin of the usefulness of AV systems. And good riddance. My work computer actually has McAfee on it, which I've disabled through th

Just another nail in the coffin of the usefulness of AV systems. And good riddance. My work computer actually has McAfee on it, which I've disabled through the registry. Don't like how slow it makes my computer. Education, people! It's better than buying useless feel-good software.

watmough 17y ago
I did some benchmarks on a Dell Precision M65. The hit from MacAfee was approximately 15-20% by my reckoning, in terms of time taken to run a compile and link cycle. Worse still, as you pointed out, responsiveness is affected, which can be incredibly frustrating.
daten 17y ago
With fake SSL certificates signed by "real" CAs, cross-site scripting and other advances in phishing attacks, just educating users may not be as effective as it used to be. Malware is quickly becoming advanced enough that even trained technical users may be fooled. Many attacks don't require user interaction. AV products may be slow to respond and signature matching won't catch everything, but if it catches half of what shows up on corporate networks it can still save a lot of time and money.
- mrcharles 17y ago
  I wonder if the value of the total things stopped by McAfee, in all its time, outweighs the purported damage of this incident. I'm thinking no.
  - orborde 17y ago
    On what basis do you say no? This is a single large, noticeable incident, but that doesn't mean that it outweighs millions of tiny ones prevented.
billybob 17y ago
I think it's interesting to consider computer viruses and biological pathogens in terms of "optimum harmfulness." A cold virus's best strategy, for example, is to keep you awake coughing so your immune system is weak, make you sneeze and cough and have a runny nose so you spread germs, etc. But it shouldn't kill you, especially not before you pass it on. I've heard (did I read it in Guns, Germs and Steel?) that syphillis used to be more deadly, but that it got milder as an adaptive strategy. Likewise, computer viruses probably have a pain threshold they shouldn't pass. If they can do their masters' bidding without hacking you off so bad that you format the computer, they'll be more successful. Possibly unwarranted conclusion: computer viruses are now widespread precisely because they're Not That Bad. So, are they worse than antivirus software? A lot of non-geeks may be asking themselves that question today. "Dang, we got a virus one time, but it didn't keep the computer from BOOTing!" McAfee has just demonstrated a computer autoimmune disease.
- wglb 17y ago
  To computer viruses and biological pathogens, add virus scanners--that model holds. For example, if this incident causes sufficient negative publicity for McAfee, then perhaps it could disappear. Does anyone recall the Michelangelo virus? One of the virus detection programs special release for that wiped the boot sector of every drive it was installed on. I think it is fair to say that in that case, the anti caused more monetary loss that the virus.
- Periodic 17y ago
  Viruses used to be largely statements and annoyances, the sort of thing a rebellious teenager would pursue as a form of computer vandalism. Then people realized there was money in botnets and password stealing. The goal of those viruses is to get onto your computer and stay there as long as possible. If you notice it, you'll remove it, so it is in their best interest to avoid being noticed. Unfortunately, a lot of them are so poorly written they are hard not to notice.
  - TwoSheds 17y ago
    Unfortunately?
dustingetz 17y ago
not all malware requires user permission to execute -- modern web malware uses a browser exploit to run itself, you and i probably wouldn't realize it.

watmough 17y ago

I did some benchmarks on a Dell Precision M65. The hit from MacAfee was approximately 15-20% by my reckoning, in terms of time taken to run a compile and link cycle. Worse still, as you pointed out, responsiveness is affected, which can be incredibly frustrating.

daten 17y ago

With fake SSL certificates signed by "real" CAs, cross-site scripting and other advances in phishing attacks, just educating users may not be as effective as it used to be. Malware is quickly becoming advanced enough that even trained technical users may be fooled. Many attacks don't require user interaction. AV products may be slow to respond and signature matching won't catch everything, but if it catches half of what shows up on corporate networks it can still save a lot of time and money.

mrcharles 17y ago
I wonder if the value of the total things stopped by McAfee, in all its time, outweighs the purported damage of this incident. I'm thinking no.
- orborde 17y ago
  On what basis do you say no? This is a single large, noticeable incident, but that doesn't mean that it outweighs millions of tiny ones prevented.

billybob 17y ago

I think it's interesting to consider computer viruses and biological pathogens in terms of "optimum harmfulness." A cold virus's best strategy, for example, is to keep you awake coughing so your immune system is weak, make you sneeze and cough and have a runny nose so you spread germs, etc. But it shouldn't kill you, especially not before you pass it on. I've heard (did I read it in Guns, Germs and Steel?) that syphillis used to be more deadly, but that it got milder as an adaptive strategy. Likewise, computer viruses probably have a pain threshold they shouldn't pass. If they can do their masters' bidding without hacking you off so bad that you format the computer, they'll be more successful. Possibly unwarranted conclusion: computer viruses are now widespread precisely because they're Not That Bad. So, are they worse than antivirus software? A lot of non-geeks may be asking themselves that question today. "Dang, we got a virus one time, but it didn't keep the computer from BOOTing!" McAfee has just demonstrated a computer autoimmune disease.

wglb 17y ago
To computer viruses and biological pathogens, add virus scanners--that model holds. For example, if this incident causes sufficient negative publicity for McAfee, then perhaps it could disappear. Does anyone recall the Michelangelo virus? One of the virus detection programs special release for that wiped the boot sector of every drive it was installed on. I think it is fair to say that in that case, the anti caused more monetary loss that the virus.
Periodic 17y ago
Viruses used to be largely statements and annoyances, the sort of thing a rebellious teenager would pursue as a form of computer vandalism. Then people realized there was money in botnets and password stealing. The goal of those viruses is to get onto your computer and stay there as long as possible. If you notice it, you'll remove it, so it is in their best interest to avoid being noticed. Unfortunately, a lot of them are so poorly written they are hard not to notice.
- TwoSheds 17y ago
  Unfortunately?

dustingetz 17y ago

not all malware requires user permission to execute -- modern web malware uses a browser exploit to run itself, you and i probably wouldn't realize it.