Viruses less harmful on Surface RT?

[chatterbot]

Defender warned that a Trojan downloaded on my RT and then I removed it. But do you think I'm inherently less vulnerable to viruses because Surface RT is for ARM?? This Trojan probably wouldn't even have run, right?

 

[J515OP]

You are correct and there are a couple of threads on this already. You are pretty secures though and have nothing to worry about.

 

[bosamar]

I wonder many others have seen a virus warning from Defender on RT? Seems very unusual.

 

[J515OP]

My guess is Defender is going to pickup any Windows virus not RT specific ones. In that case I don't think it would be unusual and had it made it past Defender it wouldn't have mattered on RT.

 

[MSurfaceWA]

My guess is Defender is going to pickup any Windows virus not RT specific ones. In that case I don't think it would be unusual and had it made it past Defender it wouldn't have mattered on RT.

Correct. The goal is to stop spreading viruses it may find vs. protecting the RT platform. Nice to know we're protected though.

 

[R0bR]

Exactly. Mac users never understood that even though there was a time they wouldn't get virus' they were carriers and spreaders of Windows virus'.

 

[chatterbot]

To increase security, whenever I browse the web on my desktop computer I do it in a virtual machine that runs Linux. So the virus would first have to breach Linux, then specifically attack VMplayer, and then breach Windows 7. This is signfincalty less likely than just breaching Windows 7....I hope.

 

[kutch47]

Wow, so my Surface RT with Defender running in the background is virus proof? Why does not MS advertize this, like Google Chromebooks?

 

[oion]

Wow, so my Surface RT with Defender running in the background is virus proof? Why does not MS advertize this, like Google Chromebooks?

I would guess because it would be Catch 22 marketing: Windows RT is practically malware-proof, but that also reminds you that full Windows OSes are not, but MS sells both, so they'd probably rather not call out a "side effect" plus in one OS that emphasizes a weakness in another OS. (I say "side effect" because choosing the ARM hardware was, I assume, primarily for power consumption reasons.)

Some reviews and articles do point out the side benefit, fortunately.

 

[Deleted member 10837]

To increase security, whenever I browse the web on my desktop computer I do it in a virtual machine that runs Linux. So the virus would first have to breach Linux, then specifically attack VMplayer, and then breach Windows 7. This is signfincalty less likely than just breaching Windows 7....I hope.

I also have multiple virtual machines to test various software, malicious or otherwise that I don't want on my desktop. I do not bother installing additional antivirus after I install Windows and have not had any problem in years. Running virtual machine for the sole purpose of browsing security seem excessively paranoid to me.

 

[kutch47]

I would guess because it would be Catch 22 marketing: Windows RT is practically malware-proof, but that also reminds you that full Windows OSes are not, but MS sells both, so they'd probably rather not call out a "side effect" plus in one OS that emphasizes a weakness in another OS. (I say "side effect" because choosing the ARM hardware was, I assume, primarily for power consumption reasons.)

Some reviews and articles do point out the side benefit, fortunately.

Ok! Thanks for that info, and I see what you are saying. From the current Windows RT TV ads, MS is fighting against iPad, and not Chromebooks. I didn't think too much about iPads because of the $, but did consider Chromebooks for the security, self-updating, and the $. I jumped on the chance to buy a refurbished Surface RT for < $200, and because Office was included.

 

[machistmo]

Last time I checked, and it has been several months, Defender was rated almost the same as having no Virus Protection at all.. Has this changed at all because of the almost daily updates to it? Just curious.