| Main > Main Forum |
| Can your cab connect to the internet? |
| << < (18/25) > >> |
| scofthe7seas:
Ahh, but the test was always slated for one day. Most seemed to agree that the infections would happen within hours. If I could, I would leave it on longer, and I have some solid confidence that it would be ok. Maybe it would have gotten something, but I don't think so. I'm just not willing to lose my household internet connection for longer. Don't forget that I don't have my cab on the internet specifically because I don't want the nagging about updates and whatnot. I'd rather not use that extra speed on such things myself. I'm not sure what you were pointing out by quoting me? In both I said it isn't impossible. It could happen by IP sniffing worms / viruses. I just think that the likelyhood of that happening these days is very slim/none. Since 2005 I have seen many people with no AV software using internet connections with no issues. Many of them for financial reasons. Some just stubborn :P I didn't use one for a very long time simply because I didn't have enough RAM to justify the footprint the AV software of the time took up. I believe Windows updates should be done regardless, because of security holes that Microsoft finds within their own software that they remedy. Not necessarily that these are/have been abused, but that they could be. With a modern OS (like Windows 7) I don't think this is a concern even without the updates. I also believe that the majority of those IP sniffing viruses have been snuffed out, much like Smallpox. They really have nowhere to go for the most part, because who doesn't update/use a router with at least some firewall built in? I think we can agree to disagree. If I ever do see an infection related to unilicit internet activity, I'll have my ketchup ready to eat the hat I don't wear. Also, don't forget that even with the BEST A/V software, someone, somewhere has to get boned in order for the virus definitions to be updated. :P |
| leapinlew:
--- Quote from: scofthe7seas on July 13, 2011, 01:22:20 pm ---Ahh, but the test was always slated for one day. Most seemed to agree that the infections would happen within hours. --- End quote --- That was a joke. Earlier in the thread you said if you didn't get a virus I would say you didn't leave it on long enough. --- Quote from: scofthe7seas on July 13, 2011, 01:22:20 pm ---I'm not sure what you were pointing out by quoting me? In both I said it isn't impossible. --- End quote --- --- Quote from: scofthe7seas on July 13, 2011, 01:22:20 pm ---just connecting to the internet without doing anything isn't going to get you a virus. --- End quote --- To me looks like your saying it isn't possible. --- Quote from: scofthe7seas on July 13, 2011, 01:22:20 pm ---If I ever do see an infection related to unilicit internet activity, I'll have my ketchup ready to eat the hat I don't wear. --- End quote --- Ok. Well, it sounds like you managed to miss all of the worms which spread around with no user activity, which is pretty amazing seeing as how I was actively cleaning up the mess from these worms. I suppose we can agree to disagree, although I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on. Unless what your saying is, you can't get a virus just by connecting your computer up to a network. Then we can disagree. |
| BadMouth:
At any rate, thanks for doing the test. It's been interesting. Thanks to kalars123 too for testing Carnevil. :cheers: |
| scofthe7seas:
I think we will disagree on the probability of getting a virus that way being minimal enough to not worry about it. It's not impossible though. |
| SuprSprint:
I would definitely disagree about it being minimal. I manage corporate firewalls, and I see the attempted (automated) attacks numbering thousands per hour. And typical infection times for unprotected systems range from minutes to hours, depending on circumstances. As such, I suspect that there are some factors that haven't been accounted for in your test such as; Did you disable Windows firewall explicitly? It is on by default in XP. Were you assigned an unroutable address or a public IP? If you were assigned an unroutable address (10.x.x.x, 192.x.x.x, 172.x.x.x), you are behind a NAT device, whether you know it or not. If you were given a public IP, send it to me via PM and run a remote scan. Did you get an address that has not been in use for weeks/months? If so, your address has likely been dropped from local scans as unreachable. Give it a few days for the first IP block scan to discover you are alive and watch your attack rate soar. Note: The question is rhetorical, you can't determine when your IP address was last assigned. Your machine may not have gotten infected, but a single data point is hardly a case study. If you want proof, just grab the logs from any firewall or IPS that faces the net 24x7. The attack rate is ridiculous on the public net. I All that said, my boxes are connected. But I sit behind a good NAT firewall and run software firewalls on all my internal PC's (except MAME) to prevent cross-spread. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |