Research: 80% of Carberp infected computers had antivirus software installed

[malwarekiller]

Just how useful is antivirus software in general? According to a recently published study by security researcher Jim McKenney, based on his analysis 80% of Carberp infected computers had antivirus software installed, which was either disabled, or cripped by the Carberp malware leaving antivirus users with a 'false feeling of security'.

The forensic investigation included 603 computers located in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska. What he found was pretty interesting. The majority of users relying on Symantec's Norton 360 antivirus had their protection either crippled or completely disabled. The same happened to AVG, Microsoft's Security Essentials, McAfee, Avast, ESET, Sophos, Avira, Kaspersky and BitDefender users.

read full story: http://www.zdnet.com/research-80-of-carberp-infected-computers-had-antivirus-software-installed-7000001679/


LOL! avira and BD were disabled completely!!!

 

[Deleted member 178]

Me? overkill and Paranoid? No....

 

[Tobi]

LOL! no doubt a lot of Basic AV's like avira were disabled!!!

When was Kaspersky, Norton, or even Avast considered basic?

 

[Ink]

A disabled AV is better than a crippled AV. At least you know you're not given a false-sense of security.

Does this call for improved antivirus self-protection for PCs that can be exploited (ie. outdated software)?

Edited.

 

[Deleted member 178]

i remember a malware that recognize the AV installed on the victimized machine, disabled it and replace the missing tray icon by a fake one... ^^

 

[malwarekiller]

A disabled AV is better than a crippled AV. At least you know you're not given a false-sense of security.

Does this call for improved self-protection for PCs that can be exploited (ie. outdated software)?

If a AV is crippled then atleast it can do something to stop it from becoming more destructive...Yes this will call for a sense of layered protection and updated software

---

i remember a malware that recognize the AV installed on the victimized machine, disabled it and replace the missing tray icon by a fake one... ^^

I guess it a fake version of avast,eset etc....i have seen these..they come in form of fake flash player...and in case of fake avast...it blocks avast..replaces tray icon and changes the avast UI back to avast 5 UI...

and starts giving warning about something called enhanced protection mode...says something like this:

Enhanced protection mode

Avast is operating in enhanced protection mode and something else...whatever.. :lolz:

 

[Ink]

I meant, improved Antivirus Self-Protection. Not PC. Corrected post. Thanks.

Yes this will call for a sense of layered protection and updated software

 

[malwarekiller]

I meant, improved Antivirus Self-Protection. Not PC. Corrected post. Thanks.

Yes my reply to your post also meant the same

 

[Ink]

Does it? :S

 

[Plexx]

LOL! no doubt a lot of Basic AV's like avira were disabled!!!

When was Kaspersky, Norton, or even Avast considered basic?

To be honest only one that can be considered Basic is MSE and even so...

 

[Plexx]

A disabled AV is better than a crippled AV. At least you know you're not given a false-sense of security.

Does this call for improved self-protection for PCs that can be exploited (ie. outdated software)?

If a AV is crippled then atleast it can do something to stop it from becoming more destructive...Yes this will call for a sense of layered protection and updated software

I would rather work anytime with a disabled AV than a Crippled AV...

 

[Nikos]

So that makes Antiviruses obsolete better a HIPS protection.

 

[Plexx]

So that makes Antiviruses obsolete better a HIPS protection.

that is where you are wrong.

If you want a good protection, you need to have several components. Av, HIPS etc.

 

[malbky]

This exactly calls for layered security. Disabled AV is better, at least you know somethings wrong you will run combofix or somethin or at least not do any online transactions.

 

[Syntax]

Too bad for Norton.

 

[iScream]

Just a note: It was based on outdated XP SP2 pcs. At least that is what someone over ZDNet commented. lol. GG!

 

[Syntax]

Just a note: It was based on outdated XP SP2 pcs. At least that is what someone over ZDNet commented. lol. GG!

lol. If that is true then why are they using old OS?

 

[Ink]

Some users refuse to update to SP3, for various reasons. Pfft.

It's not like as if, "BREAKING NEWS: Microsoft's Service Pack 3 has bricked 100% of all Windows PCs that were running Windows XP".

:sleepy:

lol. If that is true then why are they using old OS?