Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shmu26" data-source="post: 820839" data-attributes="member: 37647">I want to qualify this claim a little bit. I read today that both Chrome and Firefox had an actively exploited zero-day this year. In the case of Firefox, it was in fact capable of remote code execution on Windows 7 32 bit, due to a vulnerability in that OS which was not patched at the time.However, all the vulnerabilities were subsequently patched, and were observed only in targeted attacks. So it is still safe to say that random surfing does not put the average user at a risk of infection.Regular AV protection is not the best way to defend against attacks of these types. The advanced security solutions are better equipped for that. But anyways, in real-life terms, it&#039;s not a threat. Today&#039;s attacks are more and more targeted. If a malcoder worked for months and discovered a million-dollar zero-day exploit, you can be sure he won&#039;t waste it on you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shmu26, post: 820839, member: 37647"] I want to qualify this claim a little bit. I read today that both Chrome and Firefox had an actively exploited zero-day this year. In the case of Firefox, it was in fact capable of remote code execution on Windows 7 32 bit, due to a vulnerability in that OS which was not patched at the time. However, all the vulnerabilities were subsequently patched, and were observed only in targeted attacks. So it is still safe to say that random surfing does not put the average user at a risk of infection. Regular AV protection is not the best way to defend against attacks of these types. The advanced security solutions are better equipped for that. But anyways, in real-life terms, it's not a threat. Today's attacks are more and more targeted. If a malcoder worked for months and discovered a million-dollar zero-day exploit, you can be sure he won't waste it on you. [/QUOTE]

Verification