SophosLabs Sets Out to Prove Windows 7 Has Some Vulnerabilities
Posted 11/05/09 at 06:19:45 PM by Ryan Whitwam
Security firm Sophos recently took it upon itself to run some tests on Windows 7 sans anti-virus software. Sophos used ten unique viruses found in circulation and attempted to infect Windows 7. While many may have thought this would be a foregone conclusion, they wanted to make a point. Microsoft claims that User Account Control (UAC) is more secure in Windows 7. Does it actually make a difference?
Sure enough, eight out of ten viruses ran without problem on a stock install of Windows 7 without User Account Control. With UAC active, an additional threat was actually blocked, and the other two still failed to run. Overall, UAC didn’t make much difference in virus protection. So yes, you still need to run an anti-virus on Windows 7. There’s been a lot of positive buzz around Redmond’s new release, just don’t let that stuff go to your head.

So Sophos proves that an
Submitted by gendoikari1 on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 7:51pm
So Sophos proves that an operating system is vulnerable to viruses when it doesn't have any anti-virus software installed. Must be a slow news day.
So what!
Submitted by ExarKun1138 on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 7:07am
Since when did Microsoft EVER say that you should NOT have some kind of Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware programs running in XP/Vista/Win7? Never! Apple is the one who touts that, and now they are paying the price for their arrogance! Microsoft is all about the user running those programs, because there are so many Windows based PC's in the world, the hackers just LOVE to have their "fun" on. It sucks, but that's life in the big world today! Anyone who thinks NOT having something like AVG, Malwarebytes, Spybot, etc. are just being foolish. Windows 7 UAC is no different than Vista in terms of you needed BETTER protection than using UAC by default. Tis article, and especially SophosLabs, gets a big D'OH!!!!
Avast! ftw
Submitted by K0BALT on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 5:27am
Avast! ftw
What gives?
Submitted by Looksback on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 7:39pm
This isn't much of a news item. I have never read anywhere that Windows 7 UAC eliminated the need for antivirus - in fact you will be nagged about installing AV by the security settings advisor if it doesn't detect that you have one running.
Did Sophos "run" executable viruses while logged in with administrator priveledges to see if they would be blocked without AV? I would be very interested to know what level of UAC they were testing at, assuming that it didn't pop a warning when enabled at the highest setting. Otherwise, what did they expect?
A link to the Sophos "test" would be useful where the information is so minimal.
Default
Submitted by mesiah on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 8:42pm
The test was done with the default setting for UAC not the max setting. And you are right, UAC was never meant to be a replacement for virus protection, merely an extra layer of protection.
and between UAC, Windows
Submitted by nekollx on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 9:05am
and between UAC, Windows Defender, and the new MS AV you have no excuse for not having atleast basic protection.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/c
Submitted by Zefir on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 8:10pm
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/
good old AVG
Submitted by nforce on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 5:56pm
good old AVG
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






