Avira Antivirus Mess-up

[catnapgood]

Ready for a laugh?

Turns out that Avira Anti-virus messed up in one of it's latest updates. Actually detecting itself as a virus with it's own scan.
It would target AESCRIPT.DLL as TR/Spy.463227.
Of course as this was a false positive, it has already been corrected.

Still thought this to be a funny tidbit to share with ya'll.

Sources: ]http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=137969] http://forum.avira.com/wbb/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=137969

[Lanackse-Kanvae]

It is entirely possible. I'm not sure if I should dissect this further or whether I should leave it at that.

[catnapgood]

Lanackse-Kanvae

It is entirely possible. I'm not sure if I should dissect this further or whether I should leave it at that.

I just thought it was a funny bit. Goes to show, nothing is made perfect.

[nouveau sereph]

catnapgood

I just thought it was a funny bit. Goes to show, nothing is made perfect.

Speak for yourself.

[Saymos]

The problem with alot of 3rd party antivirus' working on proprietary systems is the lack of integration and manipulation they are allowed to further their program for the greater good. False positives are one of the many common side effects of them. When something rolls along like Microsoft's very own Security Essentials, the quality is bound to be instantly better because these developers have full access to their target OS since I'd like to assume Microsoft knows their operating system better than everyone else. It's also nice how it's free and everything since Windows itself is so overpriced and vunerable, it really is the least they can do to make sure your investment is worth every penny by protecting like that.

[Lanackse-Kanvae]

Neiu

The problem with alot of 3rd party antivirus' working on proprietary systems is the lack of integration and manipulation they are allowed to further their program for the greater good. False positives are one of the many common side effects of them. When something rolls along like Microsoft's very own Security Essentials, the quality is bound to be instantly better because these developers have full access to their target OS since I'd like to assume Microsoft knows their operating system better than everyone else. It's also nice how it's free and everything since Windows itself is so overpriced and vunerable, it really is the least they can do to make sure your investment is worth every penny by protecting like that.

It's more to do with how viruses are detected. Currently the system of using virus signatures is not working very well because it takes time to find new viruses and reverse engineer them to figure out whether they are completely new or just another variation of an already existing virus. This means that your computer can be infected without you knowing it.

All viruses, no matter what their families, share a core of certain behaviours that can be used to diagnose a virus. It's like how doctors use symptoms to diagnose illnesses. There is a move towards using a symptomatic diagnosis to find potential viruses and then using signatures to make a positive identification.

[Aven Donn]

Neiu

The problem with alot of 3rd party antivirus' working on proprietary systems is the lack of integration and manipulation they are allowed to further their program for the greater good. False positives are one of the many common side effects of them. When something rolls along like Microsoft's very own Security Essentials, the quality is bound to be instantly better because these developers have full access to their target OS since I'd like to assume Microsoft knows their operating system better than everyone else. It's also nice how it's free and everything since Windows itself is so overpriced and vunerable, it really is the least they can do to make sure your investment is worth every penny by protecting like that.

Why do you think Windows 7 is overpriced? It's not like they take an existing OS, give it a spitshine and call it a day. What, just because it looks so much like Vista means nothing changed? And even then, developing an OS is a mammoth task with lots of hidden things fiddling with stuff you've never heard of. It's not a program that runs programs. There's all kinds of stuff you need to take care of. From simple things like ensuring plain text is the same across all platforms, upholding universal standards, security breaches, etc. Microsoft may be rich, but does that mean they should sell you the OS at a tiny profit margin that would make the investment laughable? An OS isn't developed by a small team sitting in some dude's basement for two years.

[Saymos]

Aven Donn

Why do you think Windows 7 is overpriced?

I think every bit of software with a price tag is overpriced.

Aven Donn

And even then, developing an OS is a mammoth task with lots of hidden things fiddling with stuff you've never heard of. It's not a program that runs programs. There's all kinds of stuff you need to take care of. From simple things like ensuring plain text is the same across all platforms, upholding universal standards, security breaches, etc.

Please continue assuming no one knows anything except you.

Aven Donn

It's not like they take an existing OS, give it a spitshine and call it a day. What, just because [Windows 7] looks so much like Vista means nothing changed?

Of course, I mean, if the GUIs are identical it means nothing changed! lol

Aven Donn

Microsoft may be rich, but does that mean they should sell you the OS at a tiny profit margin that would make the investment laughable?

I know! What kind of idiot would provide an OS free while respecting your freedom and develop software through mutual cooporation via volunteering to better it for the sake of humanity! lol

Aven Donn

An OS isn't developed by a small team sitting in some dude's basement for two years.

You don't havng around the open source community very often, do you?

[Aven Donn]

Neiu

Aven Donn

Why do you think Windows 7 is overpriced?

I think every bit of software with a price tag is overpriced.

Aven Donn

And even then, developing an OS is a mammoth task with lots of hidden things fiddling with stuff you've never heard of. It's not a program that runs programs. There's all kinds of stuff you need to take care of. From simple things like ensuring plain text is the same across all platforms, upholding universal standards, security breaches, etc.

Please continue assuming no one knows anything except you.

Aven Donn

It's not like they take an existing OS, give it a spitshine and call it a day. What, just because [Windows 7] looks so much like Vista means nothing changed?

Of course, I mean, if the GUIs are identical it means nothing changed! lol

Aven Donn

Microsoft may be rich, but does that mean they should sell you the OS at a tiny profit margin that would make the investment laughable?

I know! What kind of idiot would provide an OS free while respecting your freedom and develop software through mutual cooporation via volunteering to better it for the sake of humanity! lol

Aven Donn

An OS isn't developed by a small team sitting in some dude's basement for two years.

You don't havng around the open source community very often, do you?

Pardon me for not parsing quotes, but I am too lazy. I will address them in order.

So I take it you don't use .rar files, you use .yar files.

And when did I assume that? People who call operating systems overpriced tend to be the people who go "OMG IT DOESN'T TAKE $9001 TO BURN A DISC!"
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify a bit better. Even people who understand programming tend to call them overpriced. They just don't view the OS as a core component of a computer. It's a SOFTWARE, to them, the distinction is clear. It's not hardware, so it shouldn't cost as much as a regular component. Something along those lines. Or maybe it's because the OS tends to be the most expensive component on low budget rigs.



Sarcasm is nice and all, but why fix what isn't broken?



Good luck making an operating system on the scale of Windows or MacOS with a tiny team working for free mate. There's a reason people prefer to pirate Windows than use Linux. I know Linux is good, but it's quite frankly NOT better for an end user.

[Saymos]

Aven Donn

Pardon me for not parsing quotes, but I am too lazy. I will address them in order.

You're pardoned. wink

Aven Donn

So I take it you don't use .rar files, you use .yar files.

Actually I prefer .7z for that sorta thing.

Aven Donn

And when did I assume that? People who call operating systems overpriced tend to be the people who go "OMG IT DOESN'T TAKE $9001 TO BURN A DISC!"
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify a bit better. Even people who understand programming tend to call them overpriced. They just don't view the OS as a core component of a computer. It's a SOFTWARE, to them, the distinction is clear. It's not hardware, so it shouldn't cost as much as a regular component. Something along those lines. Or maybe it's because the OS tends to be the most expensive component on low budget rigs.

"People who call OS' overpriced tend to be the people who go "OMG IT DOESN'T TAKE $9001 TO BURN A DISC!" is an assumption. I understand your concern, and jumping the gun on with that previous assumption, but I am into open source for more reasons than my wallet.

Aven Donn

Good luck making an operating system on the scale of Windows or MacOS with a tiny team working for free mate.

That really is a huge misconception. Not every distrobution aims for that or is Ubuntu you know.

Aven Donn

There's a reason people prefer to pirate Windows than use Linux.

Sure, it's called familiarity. The willpower/desire to learn something else is entirely an individual factor.

Aven Donn

I know Linux is good, but it's quite frankly NOT better for an end user.

Oh dear, you mean not everything is done on every distrobution through buttons and checkmarks? D-don't even get me start on games! Doushio~ crying

[Aven Donn]

Neiu

Aven Donn

Pardon me for not parsing quotes, but I am too lazy. I will address them in order.

You're pardoned. wink

Aven Donn

So I take it you don't use .rar files, you use .yar files.

Actually I prefer .7z for that sorta thing.

Aven Donn

And when did I assume that? People who call operating systems overpriced tend to be the people who go "OMG IT DOESN'T TAKE $9001 TO BURN A DISC!"
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify a bit better. Even people who understand programming tend to call them overpriced. They just don't view the OS as a core component of a computer. It's a SOFTWARE, to them, the distinction is clear. It's not hardware, so it shouldn't cost as much as a regular component. Something along those lines. Or maybe it's because the OS tends to be the most expensive component on low budget rigs.

"People who call OS' overpriced tend to be the people who go "OMG IT DOESN'T TAKE $9001 TO BURN A DISC!" is an assumption. I understand your concern, and jumping the gun on with that previous assumption, but I am into open source for more reasons than my wallet.

Aven Donn

Good luck making an operating system on the scale of Windows or MacOS with a tiny team working for free mate.

That really is a huge misconception. Not every distrobution aims for that or is Ubuntu you know.

Aven Donn

There's a reason people prefer to pirate Windows than use Linux.

Sure, it's called familiarity. The willpower/desire to learn something else is entirely an individual factor.

Aven Donn

I know Linux is good, but it's quite frankly NOT better for an end user.

Oh dear, you mean not everything is done on every distrobution through buttons and checkmarks? D-don't even get me start on games! Doushio~ crying

Ah, freeware kind of guy. Well I tend to prefer freeware solutions too. But allow me to throw this on the table. You can call argument from authority, but remember, I'm not basing my argument on "I have this authority so I'm right" so here we go:

I am an ISTQB certified software tester. Meaning, I know about usability and end users and that kind of stuff. I am aware of Linux. Now, addressing in order as usual.



Not exactly. I didn't assume you or anyone is that kind of person, but it's just easier to throw that in rather than have to facepalm and say it later.



Yes, I know not every distro aims for that. But you're comparing Windows to Linux. Windows wins. Hands down. It's the better OS. End of story. Difference is, it costs money.



See, Linux isn't exactly user friendly. In fact, there's a joke about it. If you want tech support with Linux, you don't go and ask "How do I do this?" because then the smartguys on the forums will go "RTFM" and stuff. You instead say this: "OMG Linux sux so much it can't even do *feature* which I can do in Windows easily!" and you'll get 30 or so gurus giving you tons of different ways to do it, with detailed guides, to prove to you how superior Linux is.



Ever heard of a thing called usability? You simply can't call the end user a lazy moron just because he can't intuitively grasp that which you already spent the effort to learn. Linux is NOT user friendly. End of story. Windows? I pop the disc in and follow the on-screen instructions, within 30 minutes I had a working OS on my computer. The familiarity argument holds true to some extent, but it's a thing about standards. When you get Windows, you KNOW the programs you want will run on Windows. Because Windows is the market standard. Most programs are made for Windows. Support for Windows is higher than for other OSs.

And for gaming? Linux is suicide from what I gathered. Sure you can throw all your WINE and stuff, but when you try looking up problems, you get the extra step of figuring out if it's Linux or the game itself, or something else entirely, or WINE, or whatever you're using. Not to mention, Linux operates differently. Compatibility issues will plague it FOREVER.

Yes. Usability, stability, reliability and familiarity are IMPORTANT. You can't just throw them aside and tout the superiority of open source programs. For pretty much everything out there, Open Source and Freeware beats commercial. Examples? Avast, Open Office, AdAware, Teamspeak, TONS AND TONS of freeware game... You get the picture. But operating systems? That's a whole 'nother scale. You reach a point where you can only get so far with an open source endeavour.

Analogy time. Let's say I want to build myself a gaming rig. I do it myself, simple enough. But what if I want to outfit an entire company with new computers, network infrastructure, etc etc? It's a mammoth task and it's really hard to accomplish it for free and get results that compare to a proper paid procedure.

[Lanackse-Kanvae]

I'm going to throw my tuppence in here and say that the OS not only has to deal with an ever widening range of software (it's amazing what s**t you can find when you look) it also has a few billion bits of hardware to deal with as well. Sure the hardware has drivers but the drivers still need to be able to talk to the OS.

For example, I want to move the mouse to the left. The mouse drivers go "ok the mouse has moved to the left". This gets passed to the OS, who then tells the GPU driver "move the cursor on the screen to the left". The GPU does this and lets the driver relay the message to the OS that this has been done.

To write an OS that doesn't stink like my cat's litter tray, you need to understand both hardware and software on levels that are so intimate, you may as well marry them both and start a harem.

When I'm busy doing s**t for my degree, I just want to do my s**t (be it programming, making diagrams, writing up assignments, etc) and not have to worry about "is this program going to work with Linux or is it time to hit the WINE?"

I work with some pretty specialist programs and my Uni will offer support if it goes wrong on MacOS and Windows but with Linux you're on your own if s**t ******** up. I do NOT want to have to spend hours troubleshooting programs and ripping my ******** hair out when I could be doing assignment work, study, housework, or having fun.

On that note, I'm going to sleep since it's 1:34am and I'm pretty cranky.

[Saymos]

I want you to tell me that 90 percent of that isn't just "I heard" and "well some argue/my opinion".
Let me lay down some truth for you.

Aven Donn

I'm a software tester who's biased.

Get a real degree. GNU/Linux users do this on a daily basis with something called "Launchpad" (except without the bias, generally).

Aven Donn

Not exactly. I didn't assume you or anyone is that kind of person, but it's just easier to throw that in rather than have to facepalm and say it later.

Well that didn't save as much face as you hope it would, now did it?

Aven Donn

Yes, I know not every distro aims for that. But you're comparing Windows to Linux. Windows wins. Hands down. It's the better OS. End of story. Difference is, it costs money.

"Windows wins, hands down" That's like, your opinion, man.
Yes GNU/Linux is free, but I don't think you are picking up the right reasons for that. A better example of differences would be the philosphys, work ethics, etc.

Aven Donn

See, Linux isn't exactly user friendly. In fact, there's a joke about it. If you want tech support with Linux, you don't go and ask "How do I do this?" because then the smartguys on the forums will go "RTFM" and stuff. You instead say this: "OMG Linux sux so much it can't even do *feature* which I can do in Windows easily!" and you'll get 30 or so gurus giving you tons of different ways to do it, with detailed guides, to prove to you how superior Linux is.

Judging by your community experience, you must have tried Arch Linux, if you even tried a distro at all. Maybe the old Ubuntu? But generally if you just asked you'd get help. Maybe they didn't like you, and I can see why.

Aven Donn

Ever heard of a thing called usability? You simply can't call the end user a lazy moron just because he can't intuitively grasp that which you already spent the effort to learn. Linux is NOT user friendly. End of story. Windows? I pop the disc in and follow the on-screen instructions, within 30 minutes I had a working OS on my computer. The familiarity argument holds true to some extent, but it's a thing about standards.

There's another joke in the GNU/Linux community, it's calling Ubuntu "Babby's first Linux"; and for a good reason too. I think Linux Mint might be more so though. However, I'd like to think that people who try GNU/Linux have enough willpower, interest in computers, and common sense to go through a GUI install (and learn a thing or two along the way!). Of course they'd stick with Windows though if they were as lazy and moronic as you set the example to be.

Aven Donn

When you get Windows, you KNOW the programs you want will run on Windows. Because Windows is the market standard. Most programs are made for Windows. Support for Windows is higher than for other OSs.

I don't think that is a valid argument actually. I mean sure "Windows has more program support!", but how about the quality of them? There are actually just as good open source software out there that accomplish the same thing. Oh, and GNU/Linux supports the most hardware out of the box. I'm sure you have like having to go around keeping track and downloading and updateing all of those unique snowflakes of a driver you keep around in C:~~~.

Aven Donn

And for gaming? Linux is suicide from what I gathered. Sure you can throw all your WINE and stuff, but when you try looking up problems, you get the extra step of figuring out if it's Linux or the game itself, or something else entirely, or WINE, or whatever you're using. Not to mention, Linux operates differently. Compatibility issues will plague it FOREVER.

"What I gathered".
Well, I don't think I need to answer this one seriously, but again saying that doing extra steps is hard work, then I can see why you'd stick to windows. I don't think you'd leave the web browser with that mentality actually. A bit of a fun fact though. GNU/Linux is considerably faster than Windows, so running a "Windows" program in GNU/Linux would run alot faster in some cases.

Aven Donn

Yes. Usability, stability, reliability and familiarity are IMPORTANT. You can't just throw them aside and tout the superiority of open source programs. For pretty much everything out there, Open Source and Freeware beats commercial. Examples? Avast, Open Office, AdAware, Teamspeak, TONS AND TONS of freeware game... You get the picture.

There's that word again! I don't think you understand the difference between Open source and Freeware enitrely. Open source is free, but Freeware isn't always open source. I'll assume you can infer what the implications are.

Aven Donn

But operating systems? That's a whole 'nother scale. You reach a point where you can only get so far with an open source endeavour.

And I'm sure that's why the GNU/Linux community is dead. lol

Aven Donn

Analogy time. Let's say I want to build myself a gaming rig. I do it myself, simple enough. But what if I want to outfit an entire company with new computers, network infrastructure, etc etc? It's a mammoth task and it's really hard to accomplish it for free and get results that compare to a proper paid procedure.

That's why Red Hat Linux/CentOS etc. are complete failures right? That's why no one runs *nix on servers, right? Also I think your issue is with the ITs, rather than the OS being used.

I'm not trying to tell you GNU/Linux is better than Windows (Beauty's in the eye of the beholder), infact I hope to educate you of any misconceptions you may hold (which is common), but I think you're trying to spark an OS war now with all these "Windows>GNU/Linux". I'd take you more seriously though if you didn't look like Steve Jobs and was defending Microsoft. lol

[Aven Donn]

Lanackse-Kanvae

I'm going to throw my tuppence in here and say that the OS not only has to deal with an ever widening range of software (it's amazing what s**t you can find when you look) it also has a few billion bits of hardware to deal with as well. Sure the hardware has drivers but the drivers still need to be able to talk to the OS.

For example, I want to move the mouse to the left. The mouse drivers go "ok the mouse has moved to the left". This gets passed to the OS, who then tells the GPU driver "move the cursor on the screen to the left". The GPU does this and lets the driver relay the message to the OS that this has been done.

To write an OS that doesn't stink like my cat's litter tray, you need to understand both hardware and software on levels that are so intimate, you may as well marry them both and start a harem.

When I'm busy doing s**t for my degree, I just want to do my s**t (be it programming, making diagrams, writing up assignments, etc) and not have to worry about "is this program going to work with Linux or is it time to hit the WINE?"

I work with some pretty specialist programs and my Uni will offer support if it goes wrong on MacOS and Windows but with Linux you're on your own if s**t ******** up. I do NOT want to have to spend hours troubleshooting programs and ripping my ******** hair out when I could be doing assignment work, study, housework, or having fun.

On that note, I'm going to sleep since it's 1:34am and I'm pretty cranky.

There was also an article on Cracked.com about this stuff. I'll try to find it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18808_7-reasons-computer-glitches-wont-go-away-ever.html

It addresses some concerns with operating systems.



Edit: Pardon me, I didn't notice the response you posted, Neiu. Sigh, once again.

It IS a real certification. I didn't claim to hold a DEGREE in it. It's called a Certified Software Tester: Foundation Level. CTFL. Provided by the ISTQB, the International Software Testing Qualifications Board. You accuse me of bias on what grounds? Do you think Microsoft pays me to promote them or something?



You're really going to hinge on that? Really? Yeah, it didn't save face. Your point?



Yes. It IS my opinion. What's your point? Philosophy and work ethics? Sure, you have a good point there. But performance is output, not input. Microsoft may not exactly be paragons of justice and virtue but they sure do beat Apple. No megacorporation is perfect, and Windows is a really, really good product.



What community experience? I said it's a joke. An old one. About hos hostile Linux is to new users. You're resorting to a personal attack here. "Maybe they didn't like you, and I can see why."



Aaaand... Another personal attack. Lazy, moronic? I set that example? You're still peddling the same argument you did last time, except now you're attacking me and not my argument. Riddle me this. Is Windows worse simply because it's easier to use and handle, not to mention maintain and work with?



And you obviously missed the part where I praised open source and freeware. Yes. Windows gets more support. Not just official support, but community support. If I have a problem with a game on Windows, I can get support quite fast. If it's on Mac or Linux? It'd take longer and have less resources on it. Simply because it's not as common. Not to mention, common problems get guides prepared for them. Same is true for Linux, but Windows is, once again, simpler. As another poster said, tracking down a fix for Linux is harder. It's a waste of time. Its not a challenge, it's not proof of my 1337 computer skillz. It's not proof that I'm better than those people that buy Windows because they're lazy and moronic, like you claim. It's because I'd rather pay money to get a better product. A product where I wont have to worry about incompatibilities as much. A product where I wont have to hunt for fixes, or otherwise spend precious time debugging something that either doesn't happen in Windows or is quicker to fix.



Performance arguments again? Okay, you win. But tell me, would a game that runs at 60 FPS on max settings be worth anything if it constantly has glitches? Or if it crashes often? You dismissed my software testing knowledge outright, but think for a moment. Sure Linux isn't THAT unstable or THAT unuseable. But it's LESS stable than Windows. It might perform better in certain tasks, but it will perform worse in others. Same is true for Windows, except, once more, Windows wins with the more common tasks. Linux handles servers better from what I hear.



What's with the worship of open source? So if the source isn't open, it doesn't "count" as free? I know the difference. Open Source is when the source code is open to anyone who wants to take it and change it. Freeware means the program is distributed free of charge. Pretty much all Open Source is freeware, not all freeware is open source. You don't have to teach me basic logic. If A contains B, that doesn't mean B contains A. All bulldogs are dogs, not all dogs are bulldogs.



Did I call them dead? They're not dead, they're only getting better. But they'll probably never surpass Windows quality (They might surpass Windows itself, but something better will come along by then)



Red Hat? Last I heard, it's thriving. But you obviously missed the bit in my analogy. I shouldn't have used a computer analogy, I admit. It was easy to miss it. I meant to compare with the work it would take. So I propose this analogy instead:

Let's say you're building a house all by yourself. A small house, in the suburbs. Let's say you're actually a person that knows how to build houses. (Compare with: Gamer that builds his own rigs) However, you probably can't build an entire city, not even with a whole team of you. It's an effort on a totally different scale. One where you just can't compete with the resources brought to you by more money. And you have to worry about a host of things you normally wouldn't. You're not just building lots more of the same building. You have to build infrastructure, not just hook up to it, etc etc.

And regarding my appearance... s**t, you're right, I look a bit like Steve. Except I'm not bald, my shirt isn't a black T-shirt and my pants aren't jeans. Also my shoes aren't grey.

It's also worth mentioning I absolutely hate Apple. So at least we can agree on that.

[Saymos]

Aven Donn

Windows>everything

You look like Steve when he was younger. neutral

But as for your points regarding Windows > GNU/Linux; The only points you stated were how "Unstable" (Never heard of Debian, huh) , "It's only for servers!"(And not one Desktop Distro gave a ********), "I don't get spoonfeed fast enough to solve problems!"(Just what problem did you encounter that was so bad that not one soul assisted you on what forum?), "Poor quality"(Really?), or the notorious "It's harder!"(It's okay, you never used it. I get it. This one is particularily funny, because it really shows how you never touched a distro before. [If you did, then I'm really glad you aren't a software tester there.]). They are all very subjective, and in combonation with the fact you don't even know what you're talking about. In fact you make it seem like you think GNU/Linux is just one Distrobution (Combining all sorts of problems you hear with the name GNU/Linux at the end, without realizing that each distrobution has different qualitys.). But you're right, it's all inferior and not even Microsoft would want it.

You don't have to go around thrashing it based on your bad experience and inadequacy with basic computing (Which really shows). Seriously, I mean, it's just, "I heard you get TONS of crashes~!~111!!!!11"(Which is actually the complete opposite), if not "Windows is best becuase thats all I know!" after another after another. Are you even listening to yourself? If you'd like to know, it's like the "MacFag", except with Windows. Seeing your hate of Apple, you should know just as how annoying that is.

There's a saying in the GNU/Linux community, and it's how "The GNU/Linux user knows more about Windows than the Windows user!". So let that sink in abit. See, I don't need schooling of Windows, you need schooling of GNU/Linux. Not to worship it, but to understand it. And seeing as you won't accept that, I won't continue this lesson. Class dismissed.