Windows XP: Why so many virus?
Why so many virus?
by Paul Weinstock - 4/17/09 12:05 PMhi, guys anyone have any idea why there is Windows XP so friendly to caught a virus?
Paul Weinstock
What?
by FrankQC - 4/17/09 12:09 PM In reply to: Why so many virus? by Paul WeinstockWindows XP (like other Windows operating systems) have viruses mainly because it's the most popular operating system in the world (second = mac, third = linux, and so on). Since it is popular more people try to exploit them.
If Mac was the more popular there would be a lot more attempts on infecting it, same with Linux.
Incorrect
by Jimmy Greystone - 4/17/09 6:15 PM In reply to: What? by FrankQCIncorrect. That line of reasoning does not hold up to scrutiny I'm afraid.
According to your reasoning, as the popularity of the Mac and Linux platforms goes up, the number of viruses and other garbage should go up proportionally. They don't. They don't really go up at all. They have remained pretty much flat for years, while Windows continues to grow. Of course all you really have to do is come to the logical conclusion that first there has to be something to exploit. It doesn't matter if Operating System X has 100% market share... If there's no exploitable code, there's no way to make an effective virus for it.
Quite simply, Windows (and Microsoft products in general) is targeted because it's an easy target. You can go back and forth debating whether it's because Microsoft still doesn't "get" security as a company, or it's just willing to sacrifice security in an effort to get into some market fast, like they did when Gates was asleep at the wheel when the Internet came along and passed Microsoft by. There's probably a great deal of truth to both of those possibilities, and a half dozen others.
The relative popularity of a product plays a part, but again, first there has to be something to exploit. Mac OS X and Linux tend to be much more secure, and also much faster at fixing security vulnerabilities when found. Much of the time, they patch the fundamental issue that allows the exploit to work. Microsoft has a habit of simply blocking that specific exploit, but very simple variations on the same exploit will work just as well as the original did. Kind of like if your car engine is knocking, the Mac and Linux way is to figure out why the engine is knocking, whereas Microsoft will just throw in a heavier weight oil so you don't hear it.
I know the Microsoft supplied answer for this question is very appealing, because on the surface it sounds really convincing. That's why it's important to dig past the surface, so that you see there's nothing there in this case. Then you can start examining the situation a bit more closely, and find the REAL reason. Or at least one of them.
Uhm...
by FrankQC - 4/17/09 6:33 PM In reply to: Incorrect by Jimmy Greystone They have remained pretty much flat for years, while Windows continues to grow
Actually Windows is going down, it's not increasing. Check the market share trends. Macs and Linuxs are going up while Windows are going down (they're at ~88% now, they were at like 92% or something last year).
Mac is actually going up pretty fast.
And yea, Linux .. you need the administrative "do" to do anything so yea. But seriously if Linux had 90% market share people would make viruses that could spoof administrative privs and just go ahead and do their thing.
And here's an example of when an oeprating system gains popularity viruses start coming out: http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macosxleap.html
Frank
I meant viruses
by Jimmy Greystone - 4/18/09 10:46 AM In reply to: Uhm... by FrankQCI meant viruses, not the market share of the platform. The number of threats for Windows has skyrocketed in recent years, while Mac and Linux threat levels have remained largely flat. So your assertion that threats are a function of popularity is very much incorrect.
And honestly, I have to deal with Sophos at work, and that is one garbage AV program. Someone at the office was actually on the phone with a Sophos rep who said that their AV program is terrible. We all had a good laugh over that one. But I don't know that I have ever seen such a horrible AV program. I used to think Norton and McAfee was bottom of the barrel, but oh how I was wrong. Norton and McAfee are still crap, just not quite as crap as Sophos. Not too very long ago I was looking up some reported threat from a system, and the Sophos material on it was so horribly out of date it was absolutely useless. I have zero faith in that product catching even the common cold.
But...
by FrankQC - 4/18/09 11:02 AM In reply to: I meant viruses by Jimmy GreystoneI sent the Sophos not for its antivirus but for the label "First ever Mac virus..." so.. yea.
I asked a few people who are actually literate with computers about why Windows has a lot of viruses and the first thing they said was popularity then the actual implemented security. No one would waste their time trying to exploit something that only has like 10 people using it (hypethatically). People target the masses to do more damage.
Linux and Macs also have a lot of exploits that need to be fixed. If those two operating systems had, say, 80%+ of the market share, people would target the exploits and yes the viruses would start infecting and doing damage.
I remember when Apple recently announced that it wouldn't be bad to get an antivirus now. As the popularity of Macs are increasing (which is faster than Windows is going down and Linux going up), there are higher threats to the exploits already in existance.
There is no perfect operating system so they are all in "danger." The danger rises once they gain very high (80%+) market shares. No matter how many times the corporation/public patches the exploits, where will be exploits either in the originating exploit or in the patch. Nothing's perfect.
Like I said
by Jimmy Greystone - 4/18/09 1:44 PM In reply to: But... by FrankQCLike I said, the Microsoft supplied answer of "popularity" sounds good until you start digging beneath the surface, when you find there's absolutely nothing to it. Popularity plays a part, but it's secondary in nature, because first there has to be something to exploit.
Just for the sake of argument, and using completely fictional numbers, let's say that for every 100 Windows exploits there is 1 Linux exploit. Even if Linux and Windows reversed positions in market share, there simply isn't as much to exploit for Linux.
It's also an incorrect assumption that people won't target systems simply because no one uses them. If a would-be hacker thinks there is something to gain from hacking a system that has only a single user, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
And Apple had that knowledge base article up for years, but someone just recently stumbled across it and decided it was big news. IIRC, the publishing date was some time back in 2006, not that the Windows bloggers bothered to check little details like that. Apple has ALWAYS recommended that you have an anti-virus program, it's just a few ignorant Mac users who claim you don't need any.
There's also the issue of severity to take into account. How many attacks on Windows result in total system compromise compared to other operating systems? You also need to factor in the mean time to patch. With Microsoft, it's somewhere on the order of 2 weeks, and Linux is about 48 hours. I don't recall any data for Apple with OS X. That's just an average, sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's slower. The security question is like an onion. Just layer after layer, and each one just makes your eyes hurt all the more.
To an extent I agree
by FrankQC - 4/18/09 1:52 PM In reply to: Like I said by Jimmy GreystoneI'm not saying your points aren't wrong but my points also play a big factor.
Seeing as how Windows is the most popular does lure hackers and virus makers no doubt about it...
If 1 person was using their own operating system that person has got to have the most private information out there for someone to spend their time trying to hack it..
I don't feel like arguing about this subject anymore so I'll leave it as both of our point of views play a factor in Windows having viruses
Never EVER had a virus in XP!
by webkruzer1 - 4/17/09 7:09 PM In reply to: Why so many virus? by Paul WeinstockI have never got on any of my six (6) machines with XP running ANY virus for years and years!
Virus has nothing to do with OS.
Use AVAST anti virus software.... FREE!
(Disclosure: I have no ties with the above company)
If...
by FrankQC - 4/17/09 7:15 PM In reply to: Never EVER had a virus in XP! by webkruzer1If you say "virus has nothing to do with OS", where do virus creators get their exploits from?
Never got one
by webkruzer1 - 4/17/09 7:28 PM In reply to: If... by FrankQCI have never got a virus over 15 years!
Using MS Windows on top of that.
I surf the net every day for 7 hrs.
So what's OS has anything to do with virus?
I've never got one!
Take action and protect your system like I do.
Nothing can be simpler.
Argument over OS and why Win gets more than Apple is downright stupid.
Back to my original question
by FrankQC - 4/17/09 7:34 PM In reply to: Never got one by webkruzer1Where do viruses come from if it's not the OS?
Q."Where do viruses come from if it's not the OS?"
by R. Proffitt
- 4/18/09 2:15 PM
In reply to: Back to my original question by FrankQC
A. "We install them?"
I've lost count of the times where we installed the rascal. Some are really well crafted.
For example, read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/anatomy_of_a_hack/print.html
So whether it be malware or virus my bet is we installed it.
Bob
Uh
by FrankQC - 4/18/09 2:34 PM In reply to: Q."Where do viruses come from if it's not the OS?" by R. Proffitt
He said "Virus has nothing to do with OS."
I thought viruses existed because of operating systems. Where if you have no OS, you have no viruses
Oh !
by R. Proffitt - 4/18/09 3:24 PM
In reply to: Uh by FrankQC
That's right. Now all we need is a way to do what we want without an OS?
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
