Slashdot Mirror


Bad BitDefender Update Clobbers Windows PCs

alphadogg writes "Users of the BitDefender antivirus software started flooding the company's support forums Saturday, apparently after a faulty antivirus update caused 64-bit Windows machines to stop working. The company acknowledged the issue in a note explaining the problem. 'Due to a recent update it is possible that BitDefender detects several Windows and BitDefender files as infected with Trojan.FakeAlert.5,' the company said. The acknowledgment came after BitDefender users had logged hundreds of posts on the topic. Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."

150 comments

  1. How Appropriate by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Valid files detected as "FakeAlert"? Wow, irony DOES go a long way.

    1. Re:How Appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, two negatives make a positive.

    2. Re:How Appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right

    3. Re:How Appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you add them together.

    4. Re:How Appropriate by Sagelinka · · Score: 1

      just goes to show that people shouldn't use BitDefender.

    5. Re:How Appropriate by RalucaD · · Score: 1

      On behalf of BitDefender, we are very sorry for the problems that our update may have caused. We were able to revert the bad update quickly and only those who performed the update in that short window were affected.
      BitDefender is a trusted security software provider for nearly 10 years. Over these years we have only provide the most secured solutions in the market and we want to assure everyone that this is an isolated case.
      We have also been providing information to our users via support articles that are updated regularly as we implement solutions for the various customer configurations that are brought to our attention.
      Home users will find solutions here:

      www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#638

      BitDefender Business Client users will find solutions here:

      www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#643

      BitDefender Security for File Servers users will find solutions here:

      www.bitdefender.com/site/KnowledgeBase/consumer/#642

      For those who are not able to find a solution via the support articles, we are advising them to contact our support team directly via email, chat, phone or forum at:

      www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/contactEmail/ for home users

      Thank you very much for your understanding.

  2. PWN? by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    PWN.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  3. PR - from blue screen to no screen! by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could have claimed it was all a part of a mock cyber-attack! Oh joy!

  4. So secure, NOTHING will run by Hansele · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its a new security paradigm. The newly locked down computer will not run anything, and therefore no virii, malware, bots, or solitaire, will run. Truly they've created the "most secure antivirus ever".

    1. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who has the most secure OS now? Take THAT Linux and Mac fanboys!

    2. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who has the most secure OS now? Take THAT Linux and Mac fanboys!

      Ouch. I feel so... insecure now!

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    3. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don"t worry.I"m sure one of the Mac users won't mind holding you in a comforting embrace.

    4. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows Vista (and probably Windows 7) is already more secure than MacOS and at least as secure as Linux. That was already proven by Charlie Miller at CanSecWest.

    5. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      Their soggy, brainless tenderness will surely make everything better.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    6. Re:So secure, NOTHING will run by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      FTLOG, virii is not a word.

  5. Come on guys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I had this happen to me yesterday, I though I got hit with a real virus, so I reformatted. At first I could not log in with my password, so I retrieved that with barts PE, then my desktop showed no installed icons or anything. It was bizzarre. wtf

  6. What does this say about "some" windows users? by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

    FTA: "Some complained of being unable to reboot their systems."

  7. Or maybe... by Hansele · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or maybe they should have put up a payment screen on their site, "We're sorry, your antivirus subscription has expired. To prevent your computer from being exposed to malware and virii, we have taken the proactive step of disabling your computer until you have made payment. For the low renewal fee plus a small reactivation fee of $199, we will be happy to walk you through the re-enablement process. Have a nice secure day!"

    1. Re:Or maybe... by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

      Using PayPal of course.

    2. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Viruses. Virii is fake latinization and incorrect.

    3. Re:Or maybe... by shentino · · Score: 0

      What about cactus -> cactii?

      Same pattern.

      Is it

      ( ) Virus doesn't follow the pattern
      ( ) Virii is correct
      ( ) Cactii is wrong

    4. Re:Or maybe... by quantumplacet · · Score: 1

      well, cactii is definitely wrong, its cacti. virus does follow a pattern, just a different pattern than cactus, due to differing latin roots.

    5. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ( ) Virus doesn't follow the pattern
      ( ) Virii is correct
      (x) Cactii is wrong

      The plural of cactus is cacti. Have I been trolled?

    6. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Viruses. Virii is fake latinization and incorrect.

      Do you want to write about it on your blag?

    7. Re:Or maybe... by shentino · · Score: 1

      No, if I had mod points and hadn't posted here I'd give you an Informative.

    8. Re:Or maybe... by vbraga · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not a native speaker, but from alt.usage.english FAQ:

      Not all Latin words ending in "-us" had plurals in "-i". "Apparatus", "cantus", "coitus", "hiatus", "impetus", "Jesus", "nexus", "plexus", "prospectus", and "status" were 4th declension in Latin, and had plurals in "-us" with a long "u". "Corpus", "genus", and "opus" were 3rd declension, with plurals "corpora", "genera", and "opera". "Virus" is not attested in the plural in Latin, and is of a rare form (2nd declension neuter in -us) that makes it debatable what the Latin plural would have been; the only plural in English is "viruses". "Omnibus" and "rebus" were not nominative nouns in Latin. "Ignoramus" was not a noun in Latin.

      Emphasis mine.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    9. Re:Or maybe... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us

      The English plural of "virus" is "viruses"[1].

      Mass noun in Latin

      Virus comes to English from Latin. The Latin word vrus (the indicates a long i) means "poison; venom", denoting the venom of a snake. This Latin word is probably related to the Greek (ios) meaning "venom" or "rust" and the Sanskrit word visham meaning "toxic, poison".[2]

      Since vrus in antiquity denoted something uncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns — such as air, rice, and helpfulness in English — pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the non-existence of plural forms in the texts.[3]

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    10. Re:Or maybe... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Great! Now we have grammar nazis in multiple languages.

    11. Re:Or maybe... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      What do you have against blag people? Blag people, blag people, taste blag, walk like people.

    12. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since y'all ain't a native speaker, we don't need none of your highfalutin fancy ways. Gotta solve this here like MEN with broken beer bottles and a snarl.

    13. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not same pattern.

      Cactus -> Cacti.
      Vir -> Viri

      (Vir means man by the way. Look at the first line of the Aeneid)

      The 'pattern' is 'us' -> 'i', so I don't know where you get cactii from, that would presuppose the existence of a word 'cactius'. Virus is actually a very rare word found in something like 2 places, in both cases found among other, non-latin words (Greek, probably), and is never listed in the plural form, which would probably be... virus (with a stress on the u)

    14. Re:Or maybe... by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Virus is probably fourth declension, and thus has a -us in the plural as well:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension_.28u.29
      unlike the better known second declension nouns that floow thus -us->-i rule:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declension_.28o.29

    15. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly are you able to walk with that stick rammed up your ass?

    16. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you have against blag people? Blag people, blag people, taste blag, walk like people.

      Anuses.

    17. Re:Or maybe... by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not fake Latin, or incorrect. It's English, which is my language. I'll use it any fucking way I want to.

      Thanks!

    18. Re:Or maybe... by selven · · Score: 1

      Simpler explanation: Latin plurals ending in -ii (eg. filii, anything ending in -arii, nuntii) come from singulars ending in -ius, so the -us -> -i 2nd declension plural rule still holds. "virii", if it exists, can only be a plural of "virius".

    19. Re:Or maybe... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You can do that, but that doesn't make it correct usage. The way languages work is that they have certain "correct" spellings and grammar; youre free to ignore them, but you will be incorrect in doing so.

      Disclaimer: I make no claim to the correctness or lack thereof within this post.

    20. Re:Or maybe... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      According to a quick bit of research, the latin "virus" that is the root is declined in singular only, so you would presumably use the singular always. There IS a "vir" which is declined to "viri" (long i) in the plural, however that refers to "man", so is totally unrelated. Regardless, the word we use today is an english word with a different meaning, so regardless of how the base word was originally declined, it is not done that way in english. We do not tack on endings to "faithful" as we would to "fide", why would you do it with any other word with a latin root?

    21. Re:Or maybe... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Are we speaking Latin right now?

      No.

      We're using English. To hell with "correct" parlance in terms of any foreign and/or dead language. English is based on several different languages, including Latin, and bastardizes huge parts of all of them. Latin should not be exceptional in its retained purity.

      "Virii," if it suits you. "Viruses" if it does not. "More then one virus" if you can't decide, though such phraseology reeks of superfluous verbosity.

      Your version of "correct" and my version of "correct" are not the same thing. Get over it.

    22. Re:Or maybe... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Who cares? What's important is that for some reason the latin language had built in plural Jesuses?

      What did the Romans know that we don't?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    23. Re:Or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll use it any fucking way I want to."

      Which is "incorrectly" I reckon.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virii

      Better get to synchronizing your usage to/from the language.

    24. Re:Or maybe... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. We arent speaking latin, so latin rules do not apply, the english ones do. You are certainly free to mismatch your subject and verb tenses, but to try to claim it is correct is silly. Likewise you are free to give "virus" an inappropriate ending, but anyone with authority on the subject will call it incorrect.

      This isnt a subjective thing, there is a right and a wrong when it comes to english syntax and word construction.

  8. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 3, Informative

    BitDefender is a third party anti-virus package.

  9. This happened to me by ProfessorKaos64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This actually happened to me, at first I couldn't log in with my password, had to use Bart's PE disc to reset that, then I couldn't get any icons on my desktop of use the start button, then just a black screen, I thought I had a virus for real, so I reformatted , this was yesterday, wish I could have seen this but I don't know how they would have reversed it anyway.

    1. Re:This happened to me by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is why I use and would recommend Comodo Time Machine as it gives you a nice little screen before boot where you just hit the home key and can restore your machine from snapshot before the little boo boo. And if the Bitdefender burn has turned you off of them I would try Comodo AV/Firewall from the same company. Both are free, no nags or need to register, and I have been running it on both 32 and 64 bit XP and Windows 7.

      Note-not affiliated with the company, just a humble PC repairman that has tried just about every AV and security software out there and found Comodo to be the best all around. I have been running them on XP X64 for a couple of years now and never had any show stoppers like this. In fact the only problem I've ever seen with a Comodo product is you can't run Time Machine in a dual boot with Windows 7 and XP because 7 changes drive letters, but even then there wasn't any hangup or problems, it simply wouldn't install.

      But if your machine is running a single OS Time Machine can keep problems like TFA from happening. I have had family members bork their machines beyond booting and with Time Machine I was able to walk them through restoring from snapshot in under 15 minutes. hell of a lot better than a multi-hour reinstall.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:This happened to me by Threni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only run Windows software in a VM these days - all the stuff I want to be fast, stable, secure and safe I do under Ubuntu. Windows 7/xp both work fine under the free VM Player. None of this malware crap for me, thanks.

    3. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I love how they just completely ripped off their logo design from Apple's Time Machine icon. Other than 3D-ifying it, he only change they made was turning the circular arrow around the clock about 180 degrees. They even left the time on the clock at 4:00, just like Apple's.

      And all the haters wonder why Apple trademarks/patents every last thing they do anymore. THAT is why-- they got tired of being the free R&D and design department for everyone.

    4. Re:This happened to me by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What does Time Machine do different than System Restore?

      I'm wagering (not 100% sure) that System Restore would also have been able to repair the parent's issue, it sounds like he didn't bother to try it before reformatting. But it definitely can replace lost system DLL files.

    5. Re:This happened to me by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      " That is why I use and would recommend Comodo Time Machine "

      This is why I would recommend a Mac, or at least something other than Windows. The anti-malware that you have to use on Windows is sometimes almost as bad as the malware itself.

      Windows, in and of itself, has become a stable, useful operating system. It's come a long way from the unstable 9X days, and truthfully, in some ways its easier to use than OS X. Were it not for the security issue, I might still be running Windows at home. But the cost in using Windows now... the cost in time, hassle, an dollars because of its security issues... just isn't worth it to me anymore. And if one Linux distro ever came to dominate the field and get the same kind of commercial support the Mac does... I think you'd see a mortal wound at Microsoft.

      Redmond needs to pull an OS X and completely re-write the next version from the ground up.... write it from a completely different direction, make it completely incompatible with previous versions. Backwards compatibility with vulnerable previous versions is only one of the things that doom Windows... but it would be the right place to start in fixing their problems.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope for Linux to gain good market share. Then people will realize how much vulnerable Linux really is. And there will be flood of nasty malware targeted at Linux. The poor users wont even know if the Linux machine is infected as they are not technically sound enough to even understand more user-friendly OS like Windows in first place. Just one simple trick, insert a line "rm -rf /" in some software installer bash script and distribute it and see how many nerds fail to detect it only until the machine is pwned.

    7. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Comodo Time Machine download page:

      How is CTM functionally different or better than the regular Windows System Restore (WSR) feature?
      WSR only restores certain elements such as the registry and system files. CTM restores your entire system– including files, folders and installed programs. This is invaluable for many reasons. If you accidentally delete important data you can instantly reclaim it. If your files become infected by viruses you can restore them to a time before the infection occurred. Incidentally, CTM is perfectly compatible with WSR and you can run both together quite happily. However, you may want to consider disabling WSR in order to save disk space and resource usage.

    8. Re:This happened to me by Teun · · Score: 1

      You talk like a Microsoft marketeer.

      The newer generation of *ubuntu users will only get their aps from the official repositories (yeah I know, a weird concept to the MS world) and be protected that way.
      Hard core Linux fans would find your type of exploit before it could do harm, after all they'd only use Open Source aps, right?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    9. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the heads up on Time Machine. It looks interesting and worth checking out.

    10. Re:This happened to me by Bungie · · Score: 1

      System Restore saves incremental snapshots of the system files to subdirectories in the SystemVolumeInformation folder on your hard disk. It doesn't do the whole drive, and usually has a limited number of snapshots which you can use. Most of these time machine style progtams take snapshots of the entire drive and back it up to a separate partition or drive. They usually give you more control over what can be restored and what times you can restore from. Usually you can also run restores by booting a CD or from another partition.

      Under Windows XP, System Restore also depends on you being able to boot the operating system to run. If you can't at least get into Safe Mode, you can't use it at all (except to manually pull files from the snapshot directories in recovery console). Vista and Windows 7 fix this so you can run it when booting from the Windows install disc.

      But I agree with you, in his case System Restore probably would have fixed the issue. If he was running Vista he could also run a Startup Repair from the Windows disc and it would most likely have fixed the problem as well.

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
    11. Re:This happened to me by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yet for some reason I have friends asking what Mac AV to use, which means shortly they will be running crappy, poorly written antivirus software as well. The OS isnt really any kind of protection against this, what kind of crazy world is this where technical people are blaming the OS for what a low-level piece of software managed to do to it?

    12. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But the cost in using Windows now... the cost in time, hassle, an dollars because of its security issues... just isn't worth it to me anymore."

      1) Install AVG (or other free antivirus of choice)
      2) done

      Also if you're feeling frisky:
      3) Install Firefox
      4) Install Adblock
      5) done

      All of that is free and can be done in under 30 minutes. How exactly is that a huge time/effort hassle?

    13. Re:This happened to me by Threni · · Score: 1

      Uh....what?

  10. what incompetent boobs by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you would think they would at least test updates on a few different systems (including the 64 bit systems) before releasing it to customers

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me answer in the manner of a hammer legion member poster on a Steam forum:

      Wrks fine 4 me. Must b ur computer. loL!! Time 2 upgrade.

    2. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not that simple in reality. Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches. It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates. Perhaps in the future Microsoft could make all released binaries available for AV vendors to regression test against.

    3. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might have. You wouldn't necessarily think that you need to restart after an antivirus update

    4. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is, are they 36D boobs?

    5. Re:what incompetent boobs by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a semi-common issue. One place I kill time at uses Trend Micro on a couple of machines, and two updates within the past eight months have broken networking in funky ways that made updating impossible until workarounds were determined.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    6. Re:what incompetent boobs by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple in reality. Obviously you can test RTM, service packs, etc, but system files can also be updated in individual security patches. It's simply not feasible to test every single security patch for every single supported system and platform, at least not if you want timely definition updates

      An excellent point, and if only a small number of users were affected, it may be relevant. Unfortunately, at least based on the article and the volume of reports, all you need is a run-of-the-mill 64-bit Windows install of some description in order to trigger the issue.

    7. Re:what incompetent boobs by Interoperable · · Score: 1

      What upgrade path from 64-bit Windows do you recommend? 128-bit or 32-bit Windows? Or Linux? I'm all for that last one ;-)

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    8. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's quite feasible to download every patch from Microsoft and test your antivirus software against each and every one of them. Not doing so is negligent.

    9. Re:what incompetent boobs by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.11, 4, 2000, 2003, 7, so the upgrade from 64-bit Windows must be... -512 bit Windows?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually tried to download all the patches for a particular operating system (especially one that you are not running)? Microsoft doesn't make this easy to accomplish. I don't know if they provide an enterprise service that simplifies this, but the publicly available options are useless. Go ahead and try to find all the patches for Windows Server 2003 x64 (just to pick a random version). I'll wait.

    11. Re:what incompetent boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before doing that, you'd think they'd have a library of files that are commonly found on windows machines that are known good, and an automated test that 'scans' this library with the proposed set of updates, looking for any false positives.

      This is so embarrasingly easy to do; the only sightly difficult bit would be designing a system for the scan to happen in parallel on a flock of machines (to get the scan done in a timly fashion.) But, really, compared to the complextity of writing the pattern recognition engine to begin with, that's nothing.

      (Doesn't guarentee there would be no problems, but given how easy this would be to automate, sure as heck worth it. Extra credit would be ensuring that the library of *viruses* are still detected, making sure there are no false-negative regressions.)

    12. Re:what incompetent boobs by lbft · · Score: 1

      Windows NT version numbers have gone 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003, XP 64-bit, XP x64, Home Server), 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008), 6.1 (7, Server 2008 R2). If you ignore the marketing names the version numbering is actually pretty reasonable.

    13. Re:what incompetent boobs by Bungie · · Score: 1

      Windows for Workgroups

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
    14. Re:what incompetent boobs by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's one of those "shit happens" things.

      AV signatures get updated at the very least twice a day. In some companies, the (internal) updatecycle is 3-4 hours. And not all of them have the manpower of Kaspersky. The whole signatures-packaging is often a job for one or two people. Sure, 99% of it is automated, but that's also one of the reasons why something like this can happen.

      One good reason for something like this happening is what I like to call the "race for a First". Being the first to detect something. That's basically the game they're in. The first gets the credit, they get to choose the "official" name, a lot of importance in the AV world is based on "firsts". So it's tempting to slip another signature in just before the update to claim one of the "firsts". And when that update is 10 minutes away, a full test against the whitelist and false positives list is not really an option if you want that signature to be in that update.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:what incompetent boobs by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually tried to download all the patches for a particular operating system (especially one that you are not running)? Microsoft doesn't make this easy to accomplish. [...] Go ahead and try to find all the patches for Windows Server 2003 x64 (just to pick a random version). I'll wait.

      How about WSUS?

  11. Quick by linzeal · · Score: 0

    Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.

    1. Re:Quick by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      I dare say they already have copies... and they are probably running windows security essentials Joke = fail

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    2. Re:Quick by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick, someone send Microsoft a 64 bit version of Vista and Windows 7.

      BitDefender and Windows Defender are two different things.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    3. Re:Quick by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Look, I know this is Slashdot and we like bashing Microsoft but... what the hell?

      Don't you mean, "sent BitDefender a 64-bit version of Vista and Windows 7?" Or are you making a joke going way over my head?

      What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?

    4. Re:Quick by Teun · · Score: 1

      What does Microsoft have to do with a bug in BitDefender?

      The reason d'etre for BitDefender = Microsoft...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Quick by Wingman+5 · · Score: 1

      BitDefender != Microsoft

    6. Re:Quick by Teun · · Score: 1

      Now go and read the definition for "reason d'etre".

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  12. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    you good sir, are an idiot. This update has nothing todo with Windows updates. Before you go on a rant about something you obviously have no clue about, how about RTFA first.

    I guess you must work in the food industry after all, probably the dumb fuck who always messes up my food when I go out to eat. Perhaps the root of the problem for you, was that your mom did drugs and drank while you were developing, and then she opted for a water-birth and you drowned a bit too long after you fell out of her cunt.

    Do us a favor, and just go rest in the middle of a busy highway during rush-hour traffic.

  13. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by Rivalz · · Score: 1

    your right sorry I jumped the gun and confused bitdefender with windows defender

  14. I see a market for a new product: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anticlobber software. To protect your computer against misbehaving antivirus software.

  15. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    BitDefender is a third party anti-virus package.

    Not any more ...

    How many people still have their Windows recovery CD (needed to work around the problem) or know where to find it under all the other obsolete CDs?

  16. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    The real irony here is, that you even NEED a 3rd party application to make your machine secure. The bit of irony on the tail end is just for amusement - the security software kills your machine, LMAO

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  17. Nothing new by 0123456 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I remember a few years ago that an update to the compulsory antivirus software on some of our PCs at work went ahead and deleted some important Windows system files if you had it configured to auto-scan the disk; mine wasn't so I was able to disable it before losing the files, but anyone who let it run overnight came into work to find a dead PC waiting for them.

  18. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The shame is that even though you put so much time into that post, you didn't bother knowing what the fuck you were talking about.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  19. Trusting your AV too far... by runward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This happened to me, too... bitdefender would flag nearly any file, and it first flagged a file that I had just updated, so I was genuinely concerned. The next file is flagged, however, was usbstor.sys, so I knew the AV was probably wrong.

    Some people were running virus scans... tens of thousands of false detection, and all of the files were quarantined or deleted... it was a really bad situation for many. I'm not sure how non-technical users fared.

    I use bitdefender on my computer only - I like the aggressive detection capabilities and reporting options. However, no one else in my house wants to know what their AV is doing - they just want it to work - and bitdefender is probably the worst option for them.

    1. Re:Trusting your AV too far... by origin29 · · Score: 1

      It's already hard enough to get non-tech-savvy users to use AV. It doesn't help that there's a possibility of it falsely detecting Windows system files and *its own files* as infected. This stuff is certainly not trivial, but come on..

    2. Re:Trusting your AV too far... by carterhawk001 · · Score: 1

      I ended up just restoring off a backup and re-updating bit defender. Whatever update I got no longer had the faulty code in it. I emphasized to my friends and family the importance of having a system backup available for just such emergencies.

  20. Re:LAWL by ProfessorKaos64 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the insightful post

  21. Re:LAWL by wampus · · Score: 1

    I do try, but obviously not hard enough.

  22. I've had similar with COMODO by thatbloke83 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another Antivirus software package (COMODO) has caused problems of this nature for me at work - it updated, asked to reboot and on rebooting we were just presented with a black screen, the desktop wouldn't load. Fortunately we were able to reboot into safe mode and just uninstall it until there was an update issued, but it was still part of a morning lost... While it's impossible to test every configuration ever, I'd have thought that something that would affect EVERY system in an office using this software should have been picked up during testing... Well you learn from your mistakes. If it happens again, there will be hell to pay, I'm sure.

    1. Re:I've had similar with COMODO by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, even companies that test every software update before rolling it out on their network often pass virusscanner database updates untested.
      This means they are at constant risk of disabling their entire computer network due to a mistake of the virusscanner maker.

    2. Re:I've had similar with COMODO by Dumnezeu · · Score: 1

      Oh, the irony!

      --
      Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
    3. Re:I've had similar with COMODO by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I noticed that too.

      I think the lesson is that no AV is perfect...

    4. Re:I've had similar with COMODO by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      There was another definition update for Comodo Antivirus (around the middle of last year, I think) that caused the CPU to peg at 100% usage on Windows XP 32-bit and possibly other versions of Windows.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  23. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by GIL_Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, you really don't need a 3rd party security application to make your machine secure. We just saw the other day http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/1831246/What-Free-Antivirus-Do-You-Install-On-Windows that many people have good things to say about MS Security Essentials as an anti-virus program. As advanced users, we also all know what the weak link is: end users who click on and run any old thing. Honestly, take a modern version of Windows (Vista or Windows 7) and the out of box (and on by default) firewall coupled with the automatic "run programs as a standard user even if you are an administrator" (UAC) and Windows itself isn't "insecure" like it was in the days of Windows XP. This is why current attacks are mostly social engineering / trojan ("run this for free stuff!" or "enter your password here"), or instead application level attacks (Adobe Reader, IE, Firefox). Gone are the days of the Blaster type "you are owned if your machine is just on the network" attacks. Even the most recent SMBv2 vulnerability and subsequent attacks required that you modified your default firewall settings to allow serving files from your machine.

    There really isn't a need for a 3rd party product here and the major ones (McAfee, Symantec, etc.) slow your machine and act like malware themselves.

    If anything, user education about what they should trust and what they can safely run goes much farther than anti-virus or anti-malware can.

  24. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by Rivalz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thats the motto of my life my friend.

  25. How many times does this happen? by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?

    Seriously. Identifying the safe files is easier than identifying the infected ones.

    1. Re:How many times does this happen? by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure.
      It is called trusted computing.
      But who is the gatekeeper of trust?
      In order to only allow "KNOWN GOOD FILES" you need a white-list.
      That means that no mere user is going to be write his own software.
      That means that small software producers are going to have to go through an arduous and prohibitively expensive vetting process in order to be white-listed.
      In practice this means that only Microsoft and its partners will be able to produce software for your pc at a reasonable price.
      This could even mean that user generated data files are not trusted and therefor not allowed, making the pc a device for consuming content.
      Perhaps the user could produce content remotely through software as a service providers, who would either charge highly or claim ownership rights to your content.

      Sounds really nice to you?

    2. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why hasn't the "security industry" started to validate hashes and signatures and checksums on KNOWN GOOD FILES yet?

      It's a good question but a better one would be 'Why do virus scanners have to exist at all?'

      It's deeply sick to have to check all files against a huge list of checksums of magic incantations. It's better, but still not good to keep a list of checksums of files that don't contain magic windows-trashing incantations. The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.

    3. Re:How many times does this happen? by stg · · Score: 1

      It's a big step to presume that the user won't be able to just click on an Ignore button and continue. After all, that's how it works now on most security software, isn't it?

      Small software producers already have to go begging the antivirus companies to whitelist their software when it hits one of their poorly made signatures. I've seen several cases where they get some random malware with a common software protection system and suddenly any software that uses that protection system shows up as a threat (I'm thinking of Armadillo right now, which had MANY instances of that, although WinLicense did once too).

      The procedure depends on the AV vendor - they usually have some form to report false positives. I've had to report it twice for one of my apps (which uses Armadillo). In one case (can't remember the company) it was pretty fast, on the other (Symantec) it took like a month and was probably part of a general fix up...

    4. Re:How many times does this happen? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      You've gone from "files signed by known providers should be whitelisted" to "zomg end of software freedom!" which is crazy. Having a valid signature means the file can be skipped, but not having one doesn't mean the file would necessarily be identified as bad. I agree with the OP - why the hell isn't BitDefender whitelisting files signed with known good keys? Surely that's one of the first things a virus scanner should implement?

    5. Re:How many times does this happen? by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the abacus isn't a very practical computing device.

    6. Re:How many times does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real solution is to not use a OS that is so easy to subvert.

      Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users. Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not generally used by dumbasses.

      So... do you have a more practical solution? Didn't think so.

    7. Re:How many times does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norton already does that. A customer had a program removed just because it is used by less that 10 Norton users.

    8. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but the abacus isn't a very practical computing device.

      There are any number of other computing devices that don't get viruses and are not abacuses. Linux is just one of these.

    9. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Windows security is certainly improving (fuck off if you think otherwise), but it's really a case of educating dumbass users. Linux is only 'more secure' because it's not generally used by dumbasses.

      So... do you have a more practical solution? Didn't think so.

      You can't get good security by improving something that's not designed to be secure. You can't educate users away from design problems, you have to replace the bad design.

    10. Re:How many times does this happen? by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      LOL. Go preach that junk to a college kid. They might buy it. Outside of not running by admin as default (which has been on MS OS's for like 5 years now so get with the times) is the user based is culled by default.

      If your typical dumbass uncle was running Linux and installing crap, their computer would be infested too. Well, except for the crap that nothing he wants to install actually runs on Linux.

    11. Re:How many times does this happen? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sounds really nice to you?

      Sounds like paranoia to me.

    12. Re:How many times does this happen? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      There are any number of other computing devices that don't get viruses and are not abacuses. Linux is just one of these.

      Can you name a single, unique, technical aspect of Linux that prevents viruses or other forms of malicious code ?

    13. Re:How many times does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get good security by improving something that's not designed to be secure

      Uh, the actual design of Windows NT is secure. Every object has a security descriptor and can be secured by an ACL. The problem was just a set of poor implementation choices and mistakes over the years, like home users running as Administrator, or leaving the RPC service exposed. But it's not like we haven't seen the same thing with rpc.statd on Linux, or this gem on Solaris.

    14. Re:How many times does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a big step to presume that the user won't be able to just click on an Ignore button and continue.

      If a user can just click the 'ignore' button, then the security is just another hindrance. Joe average will be so swamped with requests that he'll simply approve anything that will 'get the d*mn errors off his screen'.
      I assume you're thinking of a system that would be capable of ignoring a whole group of related objects, otherwise, installing a complex program would require hundreds (or thousands) of approvals. Also, ignoring a whole group would result in the one malicious file being trusted to go about it's evil work.

    15. Re:How many times does this happen? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      There are a finite number of windows XP patch levels, and thus a very limited set of system file signatures. They dont need whitelists on 3rd party stuff.

    16. Re:How many times does this happen? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If there were sufficient motivation, people would write scripts to wget ubuntu rootkits and sudo make install them, and it would be posted to an ubuntu wiki, and thousands of people would end up on the ubuntuforums compliaining about viruses and how they thought ubuntu was immune.

      This keeps coming up on slashdot, linux is not some magical barrier to viruses. Windows has its share of blame for crappy security, but many viruses are from users downloading stuff-- and the ones that ARENT (ie, most of them now) are from 3rd party vulnerabilities-- ie, adobe.

    17. Re:How many times does this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of course. Well, in theory.

      'tween you'n me... we do that already. Whitelisting is pretty much the ONLY way how contemporary scanners can be halfway decently fast. But those guys that make the other software are really, really spitting in our soup. They dare to launch updates for their software without notifying us. They just do, imagine, what cheek! And then they go and ram that up our ass... well, up our customer's ass and we don't know about it. Now, as you may imagine, especially system files and here especially kernel drivers do, well, kernel driver things. Ring0 access, putzing around in other people's memory, messing with the way things are loaded, all the nifty little things that anyone who wants to do some bad stuff would do, too!

      Any behaviour heuristic goes bananas when it sees something like that. And this is how such things happen.

      Plus the odd "whoopsie, we forgot to include the whitelist this time" update. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:How many times does this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Care to tell me of one? Hint: "Linux" is the wrong answer.

      Any OS is easy to subvert and hijack as long as the user grants root/admin/whatevertheheadhonchoiscalled access to any moronic program that zips about and refuses to run without. It's called the Dancing pig problem. While I can agree that it is exceptionally bad in Windows, where programs like games routinely require admin privileges to install (and quite often to run, too), this is not to blame on the OS itself. You could get the same kind of crappy software in Linux or any other system deemed "secure" when third party software writers insist in messing with system related files and content. I have no idea why users put up with it, but as long as they do, software writers will continue to put ease of code generation before security. And users put up with it because they do not understand the security implications, but they do understand that to run their shiny new game that they absolutely MUST have, they have to drop any semblance of security on their box. So they will. Let the pigs dance!

      So please stop running the treadmill of "use a more secure system". Most contemporary infections are not due to a faulty OS, they rely on social engineering and crappy browsers and their even crappier plugins. Exactly the same would happen if 90% of the world would run Linux instead of Windows, because the malware writers would simply go after them instead.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:How many times does this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh so Linux is more secure? Want an example that shows how Linux is actually less secure when put into the paws of the average clueless Joe Randomuser?

      Please forgive for the crudeness of the example, I hashed it out in a minute or two. I could polish it, but I think it'll do.

      Scenario: Joe Randomuser uses his computer and gets an email. From: Bank. Subject: Must verify account Body: We noticed that your account might have been hijacked, please read the enclosed document and act accordingly or your account has to be frozen until further notice!

      Enclosed: An executable program that looks like a pdf. Opening it displays you a nice, Adobe-looking box telling you your PDF-Reader is out of date and needs an update urgently (of course, not part of the PDF-Reader you're using but of the enclosed malware). To update, of course you have to surrender your admin/root/whatever password so the system can write the update to the HD, after all, that's something system related and such. This root password is stored and relayed to the attacker, plus a nifty little trojan is being installed.

      Joe will not question that. And since it's linux, we don't even have to hide the .exe extension. Yeah, he'll have to save it and make it executable before he can open it, but Joe will do so if the info is provided in the letter. After all, it's his bank account that's at stake! He will do whatever necessary to protect himself from suddenly not being able to pay his bills!

      And now answer me this please: In what scenario is this more of a high level security risk: On a Windows machine, where Joe's computer-clued buddy Steve will eventually kick out the trojan, or a Linux box that comes with sshd out of the box, that Joe doesn't even know about, but that allows people who know a username (like, say, root) and the corresponding password to gain shell root access on the machine?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      LOL. Go preach that junk to a college kid. They might buy it. Outside of not running by admin as default (which has been on MS OS's for like 5 years now so get with the times) is the user based is culled by default.

      If your typical dumbass uncle was running Linux and installing crap, their computer would be infested too. Well, except for the crap that nothing he wants to install actually runs on Linux.

      Who ever said running as admin was the problem here? Running a web browser or email client as a non-admin user doesn't make the virus problem go away.

      You should look at the software packages that come with ubuntu, there is software for everything. Just about anything my uncle would want to do can be catered for by software that can be downloaded by ubuntu's tools without messing around manually downloading stuff and without having to get out a credit card.

    21. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Oh so Linux is more secure?

      I avoided saying that. I also didn't mention security in general, the discussion was about viruses in particular.

      Forget Linux and Unix for a moment. What about VMS, OS/390, or Nokia OS ? You can't tell me there are not a very large number of devices running Nokia OS that run all day every day. How come these devices are not crawling with viruses? They are general purpose computing devices too, all the weird and wonderful software these things can run proves that.

    22. Re:How many times does this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simply a matter of a number of targets.

      As you know, software has to be written once, no matter if it is then supposed to run on one or a million devices. Writing malware for VMS or OS/390 is pretty much pointless, since these machines are rarely found in the hands of inapt administrators/users, and even less likely in the homes of anyone who isn't at least to some degree quite geeky. You simply get the best penetration with an OS that has the largest userbase.

      And yes, mobile phones do have a sizable penetration by now, but they are still mostly used for their original purpose: Making phone calls. And if you ever tried to develop for mobiles, you will have noticed that you neither get easy access to the more interesting parts of the device (which isn't really necessary either because, well, there aren't so many options to choose from, it's not like you have to install drivers for that new graphics card you just decided to plug into your Nokia phone) and that writing portable software, i.e. software that runs on more than a single specific model, means that you have to do without pretty much any low level access at all. Thus, again, the amount of machines you could infect with a possible trojan is simply insignificantly small, since the market itself is segregated way too much.

      The reason why Windows has been and still is a main target for malware is simply that it has to provide the ability to tie low level drivers into the system (simply because the hardware setup options are near limitless) and that it also has a very sizable userbase and market share. If you take these two factors into account, it makes no sense to write malware for any other system if your goal is the infection of as many devices as possible.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:How many times does this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously a dumbass who knows fuck all about Windows!

    24. Re:How many times does this happen? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      It's simply a matter of a number of targets.

      That's a common argument. However there are around the same number of Nokia phones on at any one time as there are Windows OS's running. It fails to explain why Nokia viruses are not everywhere.

    25. Re:How many times does this happen? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Running a web browser or email client as a non-admin user doesn't make the virus problem go away.

      Actually it kinda does. While it could screw up your personal files, it can't take over the whole system, so it becomes much easier to deal with.

      You should look at the software packages that come with ubuntu, there is software for everything. Just about anything my uncle would want to do can be catered for by software that can be downloaded by ubuntu's tools without messing around manually downloading stuff and without having to get out a credit card.

      Most free software is crap. Sorry. I do know this from personal experience though, having run Linux for a few years as my desktop. The non-sucky ones all had big companies behind them (FF, the Linux OS itself, etc).

    26. Re:How many times does this happen? by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Much easier to clean != goes away.

      A bot is a bot, regardless of privilege. And it doesn't matter how easy it is to clean if the user isn't looking.

    27. Re:How many times does this happen? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Any using Linux doesn't make the problem go away either. The only reason linux viruses are ran is because pretty much no one runs linux.

    28. Re:How many times does this happen? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Did you read the whole comment or just that line?

      It's compatibility and ability to get "deep" enough in the system. Read my previous comment, the one you commented, again and ask again, please.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Quick Scanner by vacarul · · Score: 1

    I had BitDefender Quick Scanner (Firefox extension) and two days ago it was updated. After that no flash was displayed on any website. Only an "install missing plug-in..." message. I reinstalled the plug-in but the message remained. I went to their website to notice them but you must have a product key or something like that, and Quick Scanner was not even in the products list (it's a free add-on). At that point I gave up...

    1. Re:Quick Scanner by 1s44c · · Score: 2, Funny

      Flash is a huge security nightmare. Maybe BitDefender was doing the right thing there.

  27. This isn't the first time... by TermV · · Score: 1

    A bad Bitdefender update prevented all Windows binaries from running a few months ago. It would start popping up errors saying all my services were failing and wouldn't launch any applications. I actually formatted and reinstalled my laptop because I thought the whole thing was infected with a virus. What a pain in the ass.

  28. Wait..!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a virus with the same heuristics as kernel32.dll. I think
    it will run ok. (32 bit only)

  29. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by 1s44c · · Score: 2, Informative

    The real irony here is, that you even NEED a 3rd party application to make your machine secure.

    It doesn't even do that. The third party application takes time to react to new viruses so can never do more than reduce the insecurity.

  30. Balderdash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been rebooting my machine every 5 minutes since
    Windows 3.0. It works fine.

  31. Insanity by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

    It never ceases to amaze me how much Windows users will endure.. Perhaps they are masochists and enjoy the pain of having their system occasionally rendered useless.. Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out.. Perhaps they enjoy the challenge of constantly defending themselves.. Proving that the are SMARTER than the other masochists that get burned.. Keeping your system safe has become just another game, and maybe that is fun.. I don't know.. And then they are paying some company that is supposed to put them in "God Mode" in the game they are playing.. but this protection costs them in money, and slows their protected system down.. often blocking legitimate things that they want to do, so they get an extra level of fun trying to figure out how to get their protection to allow them to use their PC.. And then even with all of this, they still occasionally get burned.. laugh it all off (after the anger and frustration has subsided), reinstall and reboot the game, and beg form more.. "Thank you sir may I have another ?"

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    1. Re:Insanity by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      How is this Windows' fault exactly? Third-party makes an anti-virus program, third-party doesn't bother to test an update, anti-virus breaks Windows.

      Lessee, the *user* bought the program. The *user* installed it with Admin permissions. The *third-party* put in a buggy update.

      But you're blaming the OS somehow?

    2. Re:Insanity by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Living a life full of worry that their machine is an accidental click away from hours of removing crap from their system, followed by weeks of wondering whether or not they got all the cancer out..

      Yes, indeed. I spend my entire life in fear of my poor lil' Windows machine get 0wned...

      Or perhaps...for most of us a computer is just a tool, a piece of machinery. And just like a lot of tools, some people know how to use it properly, and some folks get their brains bashed in or their fingers sawn off.

      I'll admit that most tools don't have entire legions trying to hack them to get to your bank account though ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  32. The cure is worse than the disease by FoolishOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the things that precipitated my move to Linux was the way Kaspersky -- at the time, the top-rated security suite -- was shutting down my LAN. There were lots of posts on the official forums complaining about the problem, a handful of useless responses from users guessing at which part of the suite might be the source of the problem, and about which of the undocumented menu options might disable that part of the suite, and one short, incomprehensible message from one of the developers, suggesting they were looking into the problem, from several months before.

    My experience with security software for Windows is that they bog down the operating system, disable basic features of the operating system without warning, and cause frequent crashes -- the very problems that they warn malicious software may cause. Simply put, malicious software *may* cause problems for Windows, but most third-party security software *will*.

    To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free, so there's really no longer any reason to buy one of these wretched third-party security suites.

    On the whole, though, you'll still get better security by switching to Linux, or at least Mac OS X.

    1. Re:The cure is worse than the disease by Teun · · Score: 3, Funny

      To Microsoft's credit, they finally sealed some of the fundamental security holes with Vista and Windows 7, and they offer a decent security suite for free,

      You have an amusing way of explaining how MS applied a (yet to be proven) band-aid to their self-inflicted wounds.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:The cure is worse than the disease by Tromad · · Score: 1

      Huh? Are you aware that security essentials has rated high in virus tests? The last comparison I saw it rated the highest of the free antiviruses.

    3. Re:The cure is worse than the disease by Teun · · Score: 1
      I agree, it's looking good.

      But it'll only prove itself over time.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  33. Time is Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

    Windows users will surely be compensated for this, since paying 499.99 for Windows entitles them to some form of premium support or compensation...Right?

    Wait, I *don't* get any compensation for this?

    I don't get any support?

    Wow, 499.99 just bought me a useless brick.

    Windows, only worth 499.99 if your time is so worthless, you have to pay other people to listen to you.

    1. Re:Time is Worthless by daveime · · Score: 1

      Why exactly would Microsoft give you support for a 3rd part application that has fucked up ?

      You saw the word "defender", automatically assumed is was another MS problem, and couldn't wait to add your 2 cents. Don't worry, you're not the first person in this thread to have egg on their face, and you probably won't be the last.

    2. Re:Time is Worthless by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Why exactly would Microsoft give you support for a 3rd part application that has fucked up ?

      You saw the word "defender", automatically assumed is was another MS problem, and couldn't wait to add your 2 cents. Don't worry, you're not the first person in this thread to have egg on their face, and you probably won't be the last.

      Let's see. Microsoft creates an operating system that REQUIRES some third party software to plug holes they have left in the system. They acknowledge that it needs this by offering their own version of these hacks used to help plug the holes. Now, one of these patches to their software has failed.

      Let's make a car analogy. Lets say Microsoft built a car that required you to open the hood and jiggle the carberator every 5 minutes. So some company built an add-on carberator jiggler so you wouldn't have to keep getting out of the car during your normal commute to work. So one day, the jiggler breaks the carberator with an extra hard jiggle. Now, whose fault is it that your car doesn't work? Microsoft for their design that requires jiggling to keep it running, or the add-on company for a design that failed that one time?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  34. Sounds like GoBack by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    Allows you to boot into Time Machine if Windows is so hosed that you cannot get to System Restore? Sounds like GoBack.

  35. Re:Update Filter / Schedule by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    The real irony here is, that you even NEED a 3rd party application to make your machine secure.

    You don't. You may choose to use a third party tool to help prevent you shooting yourself in the foot.

  36. BitDefender was right by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Windows IS the virus.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.