Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
This may seem an obvious question to ask but I haven't surfed far and wide enough to find anyone else who's asked it or an answer ....... What's to stop Virus protection software manufacturers creating new viruses themselves to drum up more business ?
They do not have to, there are enough creative and bored people to keep them in business. There are also many people that will simply not follow proper safety rules. Computer user's curiosity will continue to spread viruses without any corporate help. It does make for great conspiracy copy, and will be believed by many no matter how much proof is offered. Take care!
0 
well, some antivirus companies have products that don't work or can be bypassed. They're still in business. They don't need to be able to fix viruses as long as they can make people feel safe :P
And many antivirus programs don't find all of the viruses...some programs find viruses that the others don't. So if right now they're not complete, they wouldn't want to make more viruses and thus have their products seen as even more incompetent.
Although they might have a virus department...maybe have people create viruses so they can pre-tune their virus search engines. Then again, those users might go against company policy and thus release it...or maybe the virus worked perfectly and thus found itself out in the public? :P
0
If you're so worried, stop using Windows. Microsoft has the right to install anything they want on your computer as admin, did you know that? Read your EULA.
Closed-source software can have as many back doors as the companies want to throw in because other people can't check the code.
This is just one of the many reasons to use GNU/Linux or BSD.
0
this one stirs a bit of conversation. i bet you would be interested to hear that AV creators are constantly making new and inventive virii. most are for proof of theory (enlarge someone's ego) or to exploit every possible variant so they are basically one step ahead of the game. the most recent "proof of theory" created by an unnamed AV "associate" is the infamous W32/Perrun. of course they could use this information to drum up business, but you know as well as i do, the general public wouldn't allow it. although they may get away with it for a while, in the end its honesty and information that rules this game. ;)
.:bi0phreak:.
0
As for repsonse 4, I've been hearing that Linux is rapidly becoming the chosen home for most of your computer viruses and worms. I've heard that if you stick an unmodified Linux box on the Internet with a high-speed connection, it takes an average of 30 minutes for the system to be infected with one virus or another.
0
there was an two different articles a while back one about mircosoft releasing a virus and a antivirus software company as well if i find the articles will post them
0
PC Freak, my post was about users who know what they're doing setting up a system they can trust to be free of backdoors, torjans, spyware, etc. intentionally included by default.
Viruses are a different issue. I've never gotten a virus in Linux. Actually, I've never even heard of even one specific Linux virus. To keep Linux secure, set up a firewall and don't run servers you don't need. If you need servers, make sure to upgrade and you'll be fine.
I ran a wesite on my school's network, and checking my logs, I got many scans for IIS vulnerabilities but not a single test for an Apache hole. I think it's safe to say the script kiddies are still attacking Windows primarily.
The only good reason to hack Linux rather than Windows is UNIX raw sockets, which may have been what you were hearing about. dDOS attacks from Linux can have spoofed IP addresses, so they're harder to track.
In the end, it all comes down to how smart the user is. Most OSs are insecure by default. Linux is still far better for security in the end, though. If you want security by default, use OpenBSD with its one remote hole in the default installation in 6 YEARS.
If you would like to continue this discussion, provide some evidence supporting your claim that "if you stick an unmodified Linux box on the Internet with a high-speed connection, it takes an average of 30 minutes for the system to be infected with one virus or another".
0
I got my information from the free Weekly Wambooli Salad Newsletter (www.wambooli.com), run by computer book author Dan Gookin. He got his information from his ISP. So to continue this discussion, you would have to talk to him. If you want the full text of the news update and/or his email address, so you could talk to him, let me know.
0
Hmmm... you got your info on Linux security from a guy that writes DOS and Windows books?
Also, how does your ISP know if you have a virus?
Right now, the only practical way to infect a desktop Linux system (or up-to-date server), is to get your victim to run the virus as root. Windows viruses spread mainly by exploiting IE, Outlook, IIS, and P2P programs like KaZaA. Linux doesn't have any of the above vulnerable apps.
I don't really want to talk to Dan Gookin to try to figure out how he got his information. I just want people to know that Linux is secure.
0
Just because he writes DOS and Windows books doesn't mean he knows nothing about Linux. He uses both Linux and Mac, as well as Windows. Who says he won't ever write a Linux book?(Why am I defending him, anyway?) Besides, all I was doing was saying what I had heard. I never said I knew it to be 100% accurate. This is the exact info that I had read:
" Looks like Windows is no longer the number one preferred platform for
computer viruses. Stand aside Bill Gates! No, it's Linux that's rapidly
becoming the chosen home for most of your computer viruses and worms. Like my
ISP tells me, if you stick an unmodified Linux box on the Internet with a
high-speed connection, it takes an average of 30 minutes for the system to be
infected with one virus or another. And because most Linux users are in over
their heads anyway, most of them run their systems for months not knowing
what's going on. Oh, I suppose it's time for me to Write That Linux Book . . ."I don't know what his ISP is (nor am I interested) so I don't know how they would know this. All I was doing was presenting an opinion that maybe Linux isn't the most secure thing in the world, like you are trying to make it out to be. (Yeah, I know you didn't say exactly that.) Windows can be safe too, if you are smart about using it. I've used Windows for several years and have never once been infected with a virus.
Why am I wasting my time fighting this, anyway? I don't use Linux, never plan to, and don't really care how much more secure it is than Windows. All I did was relate something I read.
0
My original point was that Windows can never be as secure as Linux or *BSD because companies can leave security holes in their software and we would never know.
The virus issue is secondary, but I don't want your claims to scare away potential Linux users.
Also, if you think Windows is secure, read this- http://security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html. Basically, on any windows system, if there's a GUI program running as admin, any user can execute arbitrary code as admin. It looks like there's no way to fix this without breaking compatablility with many applications.
0
I'm wasn't trying to scare away potential Linux user with my post. This topic was orignally about viruses, so that's why I posted about the Linux virus thing. Your comment of "If you're so worried, stop using Windows." made it seem that you were also refering to viruses only, which is why I posted what I had heard. As for security, there is no doubt that Linux/Unix/BSD systems are FAR more secure than anything Micro$oft has put out. (Interesting article, by the way) But as for most viruses, it really depends on how smart/careful about it the user is. Hopefully LindowsOS will be as secure (or close) as Linux is.
0
Lindows is very insecure. From what I've heard, you're root all the time. Why would you use Lindows anyway? Linux is easy enough to install (some distributions), and WINE will run all the Windows programs Lindows runs.
0
I wouldn't have a problem with being root all the time. (That would be kind of like a Win9x system which has no guest/administrator setups, right?) I'm interested in Lindows because it's supposed to be somewhat easier to use than Linux, and it would be an alternative the the M$ products that could run Windows apps. I tried Linux a while back, and had a miserable time messing with it. It took forever to get it to install right and actually start up, (had to start it from DOS with LinLoader [or whatever that was called; I don't remember]) several of the things I tried to do weren't working right, and I never could get it to install my modem or sound card drivers. Couldn't get WINE to work either. The only two things I installed that worked right were DOSEMU and Opera 5. (Kind of useless wihtout a working modem) Anyway, after that 'fun', I've never wanted to have anything more to do with Linux. But I heard Lindows would be easier, so I wanted to try that.
(In case you were interested, the version of Linux was Red Hat 7.0, which came with the "Linux for Dummies" book that was of no help to me at all...)
0
"That would be kind of like a Win9x system which has no guest/administrator setups, right?"- that's why 9x has virtually no security compared to NT
The best distribution for newbies is Mandrake. RedHat is close, but Mandrake is easier. You don't need a dummies book, just a forum of people willing to solve a few problems for you.
Lindows defeats the point of using Linux. If you want something easy to set up that runs Windows programs, use Windows!
If you want something a little more difficult to set up, but stable, secure, and open source, use Linux. You probably won't even need WINE in the end, unless you want to play games that haven't been ported. There are substitutes for just about everything else you would use in Windows.
I would also like to ask you how difficult Windows was the first time you used it. Could you do everything in Windows that you expect to do in Linux immediately after installation?
0
"You don't need a dummies book, just a forum of people willing to solve a few problems for you."
Yeah, I got the book before I found out about Computing.Net.
"Lindows defeats the point of using Linux. If you want something easy to set up that runs Windows programs, use Windows!"
That's part of the point: I don't really want to use the Micro$oft OS. I (and others that I know who know don't know a whole lot about computers) want something easy to use and setup that runs Windows apps and isn't made by Micro$oft.
"I would also like to ask you how difficult Windows was the first time you used it. Could you do everything in Windows that you expect to do in Linux immediately after installation?"
When I first started learning how to use a computer, it was with DOS 6.22/Win 3.11. The first couple days were a bit rough because the computer I had access to didn't have a working mouse, and I hadn't figured out the Alt key yet. But after the PC had a working mouse, it came pretty easy to me. (And I learned the keyboard shortcuts soon after) At the time, being new to computers, everything seemed to work pretty logically to me, so it wasn't that hard to figure out. It didn't take long to figure it out, but with Linux, nothing seemed logical. Nothing seemed to work anything like the way you would think it would work. I messed around with it for 2-3 weeks before I got sick of it and dumped it in favor or trying out the Windows 2000 Pro RC3 CD someone gave me.
I may try Mandrake Linux sometime, but I don't/won't have the drive space or the download time anytime soon. I've heard it is supposed to be much easier than other distros, but after my experience with Red Hat, I'm not too eager to try a Linux system.
Also, about the Win9x (in)security, were you meaning it is vulnerable to hackers and such? Because I don't have to worry about other people actually sitting down at my PC and messing around, (like the article mentions) which is why I don't even have the NT/2000/XP guest accounts active. But were there other security issues that you were refering to that would be in Lindows/Win9x that aren't in Linux/NT/2000/XP? (Or at least Linux?)
0
"That's part of the point: I don't really want to use the Micro$oft OS. I (and others that I know who know don't know a whole lot about computers) want something easy to use and setup that runs Windows apps and isn't made by Micro$oft."
If you're expecting Linux to be like Windows but not made by Microsoft, you won't like it. Once you learn how to use Linux, you won't need your Windows apps or the Windows way of doing things.
0
That is probably part of the reason why I'm not currently very interested in using Linux. I want something similar to the M$ product, without being made by M$. (For example, I also use OpenOffice 1.0. Similar to M$, opens the M$ formats, but isn't made by them. If I did use Linux, that would be one app I wouldn't have to quit using, since it also has a Linux version.)
When I first installed RedHat, I wasn't expecting it to be like Windows. I just didn't like it. So right now, I'm interested in finding a similar alternative to Windows.
0
You know something strange? This discussion has actually sparked my interest again in trying Linux... ;-) This time I may be more successful, since I know about the Linux forum here. Although this won't be happening until I cana find a cheap/free drive imaging/backup program, which so far I'm having no luck...
0
Check this out for a Windows vs. Linux installation comparison- http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0812.install.html
Why do you need the drive imaging program? The only thing you could corrupt is the boot record, but all you have to do for insurance is make boot disks for both OSs. Once you get Linux up, you'll have tar and cpio for backups.
0
Currently I my system is running Windows 98SE, 2000 Pro RC1, and XP Home. To make enough space to be comfortable, I'm planning to delete the Windows 2000 Pro RC1 partition and put Red Hat 7.0 on. However, if I get sick of it like I did last time, I want to be able to bring back my Win 2000 installation the way it was, instead of reinstalling everything. Currently I'm downloading Norton Ghost 6.0 Trial, which I hope will do what I need. Hopefully, my Linux attempt will go better this time, with the help of these forums.
0
Don't know if you are still watching this post, but you had mentioned this:
"Also, if you think Windows is secure, read this- http:// security.tombom.co.uk/shatter.html. Basically, on any windows system, if there's a GUI program running as admin, any user can execute arbitrary code as admin. It looks like there's no way to fix this without breaking compatablility with many applications."
That means Linux isn't all that secure either. That article was referring to someone actually at the PC running things as Admin from another account. Well, according to "Linux for Dummies", anyone who can get to a Linux PC can change the root password and gain access to everything! Good thing other people don't use my PC...
0  |
 Restricting access to my ...
|
Permissions HELP!
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
