Current WMF exploit detection by AV scanners as of January 1

I have AVG Pro. But also have Ewido Plus.
Larry

Here's the updated test-result:
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer/archive/2006/01/04/39774.aspx

Check-out also:
http://castlecops.com/a6444-Does_your_antivirus_pick_up_the_73_WMF_Exploit_Variants.html
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=113538

After reading your post yesterday, I checked the PC Mag. link and was a little concerned, as I had AVG Pro.
I had the patch installed as well as running Ewido Plus Version, but I uninstalled AVG and kept the installer.
I downloaded Avast 4.6 and updated ran a quick scan (as it was late) and it found "Win32:Kuang2" which AVG did not find, but after doing a Google I found out this is part of a Panda file.
I'm going to try Avast for awhile and may not go back to AVG, just depends how I like Avast.
Any thoughts on this?
Got to go to the store, will be back after while.
Larry

This was just one survey on WMF type intrusions. Since I am patched until Microsoft issues a fix it was of no great concern to me. Maybe later I will make a change but this one thing does not overrule my long term good experience with AVG... it's never let me down yet!

Just sharing!

Glenn

I still have about 6 months remaining on AVG Pro, but have wanted to try Avast, so seemed like a good time LOL I may not like it and go back to AVG, as it hasn't let me down either. I like to try different programs. Just like now I'm using Opera more than Firefox.
I have another PC in the living room that I could use as a test box, it's just setting for now with no place to plug in. Cable is a Mile down the road, maybe some day they will run it out this way, they won't now just for one house.
Larry

It seems a good choice Larry. You can go back anyway to AVG if you don't like avast or other AV.

My personal choice of an antivirus is fast in detecting what is in the wild, passed the certications and testings. If others can pass those, why not others?

Depends on everyone's requirement and choice though.

U 1st treid downloading the patch from the article Donna posted. The download said my computer was not configured to work with the program.

That alarmed me as my computer is pretty much a normal, fully patched XP machine. So, out of curiousity I then downloaded the WMF tester. That showed I was "invuunerable" to the flaw.

I don't know why my computer isn't vulnerable to the exploit. I maybe don't understand the flaw so well-- but having read the available stuff on the web about it I can't imagine why my conmputer is safe from it and others aren't. The exploit, as I understand it, is basic to IE in general.

What makes some computer open to the WMF and others safe? Anyone know?

Microsoft released the Critical Update yesterday so it's possible if you are set for auto updates that this was auto installed.

Glenn

Go to Control Panel>add/remove programs. Check on the MS Updates, you should have KB912919 showing. Probably the last one down. Got mine about 4:30 ET.
Larry

I may not go back to AVG. From what I've seen so far, Avast 4.6 seems to be Better than AVG. JMHO After using AVG for close to 2 years, I really did not want to change. But I'm not against checking out new options.
I'll give it about a months trial and then decide.
Larry

to have the ability to catch serious threats. IMHO it is not only about the bug or vulnerability in Windows. It is also how an antivirus as first "defense" will protect a user.

BTW, you're welcome! I haven't use avast! so you're the one to ask next time I need an answer about it

that is not only fast in adding 1 detection but the variants.

IMHO, freeware is always a wise-choice but not a good choice because we all know that most freeware has limitations (functionality, features and support). I'm not against in using freeware protection but if one can afford to get a subscription-based security protection and the product passed the certifications and independent testings, I think it's best to invest some money for your own protection.

Additional reading in choosing an antivirus below:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/donna/articles/4334.aspx

Read about the AV certification and testing. I really recommend to use a product that passed the certification and current testings. Malware do not use old tricks to infect a system and thanks to this certififications and testings results by companies (dependent or independent) for they make the consumer's aware on how a product or service acts on such wide-spread exploit.

Microsoft promised to provide an update this month but we have a responsibility to protect our own system and other's system by making sure we aren't infected. One method is to use an antivirus and firewall software that do what it claims.

Choosing a security tool is tough. Use the one that works best for you and you believe will protect you <-- this is the normal recommendation by anyone to any person that is looking for free protection. But if you will ask the experts, what works for you is not the basis

Users need to learn how to make it work to them and to their system.

Example: Product A is light to use, don't use much resources and giving free lifetime updates. Product B is eating too much resources and it's not freeware to all users.
Product A failed many tests but Product B seldom fail.

If an expert will see that example, the expert will go for Product B and teach the students to use it to make it work with less resources and by upgrading the system to be able to handle whatever the security program requires just to make sure the system is protected.

Just my opinion.

Extra reading:
Fee or free in fighting viruses?
Computer users face tough choices in seeking software

With such result, would you still recommend AVG??
Yes and No.
It depends on what type of user is asking for recommendation.