That's the report. Now, let's see how long it takes for Symantec to add a definition.
Lol I am not going to wait 3+ weeks for this pws stealing trojan to do its work before Symantec finds a fix. If I was a novice, I would never even have heard it. And then all of a sudden the funds in my bank are depleted and someone's been using my credit card =\
You realize that fruad takes over 10 years to clear up and thousands of dollars in the process?
Dieselman743 wrote:Stop being so paranoid. Did you bother to read that it clearly says the spreading is low.
So you're going to discriminate the unlucky minority that does get burned?
5 hours. MBAM has added the definition since a user brought attention to it.
Did you bother reading this. I guess not.
This is a quote from the Johnathan Blog the Link to it was provided in initial post, Does This Mean that Firefox is Insecure?No, and here’s why:"This particular malware targets our program, but once you have malicious software running on your system, it can just as easily attack other programs, or harm your computer in other ways. ''This isn’t contracted by just browsing around the web with Firefox 3. In fact, the Malware Protection features in Firefox 3 are designed specifically to prevent sites from being able to attack your computer. ""The people getting infected here are either downloading enticing files that have the malware hiding inside (which is why Firefox 3 hands off all downloads to your computer’s virus scanner once downloaded) or, as some sites are reporting, people who have already been infected in the past having their computers forced to download this file as well. '"Typical Firefox 3 users who avoid downloading software they don’t trust are unlikely to ever see this, and even the sites reporting it describe its incidence as “rare”.
I download malicious files all the time. Norton did not detect anything, until I used the context menu option to scan the file. Just download eicar.zip and see. It might say running virus scan, however it is not going to do anything even if there is malware. I doubt it even scans the file.
As for the threat being "rare", it is still nice for Norton to be on top of those kinds of things. And see my previous posts.
"Real-time protection does not scan the contents of container files such a zip files. Manual scan does. If and when a user should choose to extract the file from within the container file it will be caught by the real-time protection. -Reese Anschultz"
All very good but isn't it also rather irrelevant if real-time protection doesn't actually have the definition for the said trojan in the first place?
And three weeks is a VERY LONG time indeed for something as nasty as this. In reality it's no more than a PIA to have your PC trashed by some mangy virus but another thing all together to be left at risk for fraud, only takes one visit to your bank site and your cleaned out.
Most users rely on companies like Symantec to protect them from this type of attack so IMO Symantec should give precedence to these over all others with immeadiate protection.