'Image Bug' question

[moon]

The most complimentary description of my anti-virus knowledge would contain 'vague' somewhere within so I'd like to ask about defences to this particular bug. Can AVG be configured to scan any online image or does it already do it automatically ? If not, is 'SurfinGuard ' a defence ?

It seems that my OS, Win2K Pro, is unaffected by the bug and I seldom use IE, but I don't want to get caught with me strides round me ankles. :blink:

:rolleyes:

[moon]

Ommission;

SurfinGuard® Pro 5.7

SurfinGuard® Pro for home users and small businesses, protects PC users from new, unknown Internet threats by monitoring and containing the behavior of downloaded programs and active content. SurfinGuard Pro runs active content (e.g., executables, ActiveX, scripts, Windows scripting files and Java) in a protected "sandbox" called the Safe Zone that automatically blocks potentially hostile actions.

Using Finjan's patented First-Strike Security® technology, SurfinGuard Pro protects your PC while allowing you to manage the behavior of code that is downloaded from e-mail or the Web. SurfinGuard Pro represents a proactive way to combat unknown Trojan horses, Internet worms and hostile Web pages based on code behavior, rather than traditional anti-virus programs that uses static signature recognition. Because SurfinGuard Pro does not rely on database updates, it can defend against new, unknown attacks and variants.

http://www.finjan.com/products/HomeUsersSurfinGuardPro/

[moon]

Hmm. Am I right in thinking that we don't really known what AVG does ? :blink:

[Scarecrow Man]

What do you mean we don't know what AVG does? It uses heuristics and scans a file looking for things that look the same as a database full of viruses. If it finds one that is close, it flags it. If it is not known, it is passed.

[moon]

Cool. Can it detect the 'image bug' online ?

[Scarecrow Man]

What is this Image Bug you speak of? If it's a virus, chances are the FREE edition will not catch it in the act (though I may be wrong) but it will be caught on the next full scan.

[moon]

Strange. I could have sworn I put the link in the first post. This image bug;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3684552.stm

And this is why I'm asking about it;

This could mean that users find their machine under attack when they view images on the web

Saving images is one thing, ant-V software will kick in, but viewing images ? I know that anything on your screen is already in your RAM, but I assumed that nothing could execute from there. This article appears to be suggesting that it can so I'm asking if AVG can prevent that or is something like this 'SurfinGuard' a better, or an additional safeguard ?

[-pops-]

Does Surfinguard do anything more than PrevX? https://www.prevx.com/ PrevX has the advantage that it is free.

Note that a² latest update includes detection/eliminaton of JPEG exploits. http://forum.emsisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=1825

[moon]

Looking at your link, pops, it's hard to say. I can't see anywhere as to how it works. I would dowload the free version and run it but, unfortunately, it's for XP and W2K only.

SurfinGuard, it seems, runs on a 'sandbox' system, putting everything into a quarantine area before allowing it . Maybe that impacts on performance, I don't know.

The gist of my query was can malicious stuff run from RAM ? That seems to be the threat posed by this JPEG bug.

[Scarecrow Man]

Chances are it will impact performance, but probably not much. I think the image bug is an exploit and only script kiddies are going to be using it. Just don't go to any untrusted websites and you'll be fine.

[Chris]

http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/44003/44003.html

[moon]

Just don't go to any untrusted websites and you'll be fine.

Perhaps this should be in the Debates forum.

I have no idea what an 'untrusted' site is. To ask a rhetorical question is that an 'illegal' site, a site with dubious content, an Arabic site or what ? As a user with a moderate knowledge I want to be able to visit anywhere on the 'net in safety.

I've found from experience that third-party software is preferable to Microsoft inbuilt apps. and that security issues are best dealt with by companies outside of MS sphere of influence. Unfortunately, I'm 'GUI' dependent and third-party apps. have to reflect that or I can't use them. In the same way that I wouldn't expect everyone to be a policeman, in order to walk down the street in safety, I shouldn't be expected to have mastered code and command lines in order to surf.

That's not to say that I've drawn a curtain over my learning processes but there are limits. If I can phrase the question again, are we entering a period when we can pick up nasties simply by viewing web images and, if we are, is there a simple third-party app. which works as a defence ?

[Scarecrow Man]

I want to be able to visit anywhere on the 'net in safety

I'm sorry to say this, but that's not possible. Computers have something like 62,000 ports. All of which are open at all times (with no firewall) therefore, there are 62,000 ways a hacker could get into your computer. A firewall will close the not needed ports, and apply rules for the ones that MUST remain open. This will protect you quite a bit more than just browsing with an anti-virus, but your still not 100% safe.

The only way you are going to be safe on the internet is if you dissconnect.

[lester1]

Looking at your link, pops, it's hard to say.  I can't see anywhere as to how it works.  I would dowload the free version and run it but, unfortunately, it's for XP and W2K only.

SurfinGuard, it seems, runs on a 'sandbox' system, putting everything into a quarantine area before allowing it . Maybe that impacts on performance, I don't know.

The gist of my query was can malicious stuff run from RAM ? That seems to be the threat posed by this JPEG bug.

Moon I've just down loaded and it covers windows from 95 on :unsure:

[Boris]

moon

Have you installed this ?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

[moon]

Lester, Prevx, from pops link, is for w2K and XP only. I just went back and checked. It rejects responsibility if use is attempted on any other OS.

Boris, I saw that, ta, but it's not just IE that is vulnerable. I'm trying firstly to find out if this thing infects RAM and secondly if there is a third party app. which will block it. :)