EPTApril Fool's".
gg
April 1st Conflicker Virus - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MyStiC_Chaos
United States499 Posts
April Fool's". gg | ||
|
EternaLEnVy
Canada513 Posts
lol, this is jaedongfan | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
Equaoh
Canada427 Posts
| ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
Pretty much all you have to do is keep your system up to date. The only danger associated with the conficker virus is the many unupdated computers up there. This is obviously a danger to the owner of that computer but it is also a danger to everyone else as the makers of conficker can use those computers for denial-of-service attacks. On April 01 2009 12:22 OmgIRok wrote: “It’s definitely serious,” Kevin Haley, director of security response at Symantec, LOL AND YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THE MAKERS OF NORTON? Fuck that shit, I say the newspost is their way of an April Fools Joke. The latest versions of Norton are awesome. I can scan my computer while running Empire: Total War and I do not even notice it. It can sometimes block programs that you do not want it to block but so does every other anti virus program. Besides, you have to be pretty dumb with computers to not be able to avoid that happening. | ||
|
besseriym
United States42 Posts
On April 02 2009 04:47 0xDEADBEEF wrote: There's a huge difference between the OS being susceptible to viruses and the number of viruses available for the OS. Tons of viruses are available for Windows, but most suck and you'll never be infected by one of them if you're not totally computer illiterate. Because of the points I mentioned above, I'd guess that Windows is less susceptible to viruses now than OS X. Because Windows has gotten very secure. If a virus spreads, it's most likely the fault of the user. Like with Conficker. So basically you're coming to the wrong conclusion. You only see that many viruses are available for Windows and so it must be somehow easy to get infected, or that it must be somehow less safe than other OSses. Which isn't true. Ok, the threat of so many viruses out there maybe shouldn't be underestimated, but still, Windows has become fairly secure so it's likely you'll never have virus problems if you're a somewhat competent user. Just like with the other OSses too. They just have the "advantage" of low popularity, meaning very few viruses in general. But my point pretty much is that if Linux, OS X and Windows had 33.3% market share each and we'd only count future viruses, then Windows would probably not be the easiest target (anymore). Ok, it's obvious that you are not very well informed about the subject at hand, and your information is not correct. I understand what you're saying...you're saying that the reason Windows is so susceptible to viruses is because of the amount of viruses made for Windows, which is not accurate. You are correct in stating that the reason there are SO MANY viruses for Windows is because of it's popularity, but that is NOT the reason it is so susceptible. The reason it is susceptible is because Microsoft does not implement your system permissions correctly. What this means in a nutshell is that I can basically make this virus do whatever I want to your computer, because it is VERY easy to gain administrative rights on a Windows machine...and once I have administrative rights of your box, I can then do whatever I please (including the complete destruction of your OS.) In fact, you don't have to actually download the virus and install it for me to take FULL control of your computer. This has been well documented, and actually brought to the attention of Microsoft by a ridiculous number of security experts. The fact is that Microsoft refuses to properly secure their OS for reasons unknown to the intelligent tech community (other than the fact that there's no money in a cure :\) I have no clue where you are getting the information that the majority of viruses for Windows are not dangerous, because that is absolutely false. I think you may have meant to imply that the majority of Spyware is not dangerous, which would be an accurate statement. There is a large difference between Spyware and Viruses, and if you ask me, I wouldn't really want to have to deal with either. Because of the fact that its incredibly easy to make a virus for Windows, you also have to take into consideration that a good portion of those viruses (usually made by script kiddies) are not made very well at all. But as far as I'm concerned, ANY virus is a bad virus. You also mentioned "If a virus spreads, it's most likely the fault of the user." Which is again completely false. Even if you are very computer literate, once you are infected with a properly made virus, there is very little you can actually do to prevent it from doing it's damage (unless it gets caught preemptively by your anti-virus software.) All you can really do is hope that the virus you were infected with doesn't do permanent damage to your system. And that's assuming you actually NOTICE the virus (which again, if it's made properly will not be so easy to do.) On the flip side, the System Permissions on a Unix based OS (like Linux or OS X) are handled very differently than that of a Microsoft OS. This means that in order for me to gain Administrative rights on a *nix machine, I would have to go through a lot more work, and if your system is configured properly this task is NOT easy by any means. Only when I gain administrative rights to your computer can i do any REAL damage. SO...that being said, you can choose to believe whatever you want about the security of Windows, but the fact is that it is NOT a very secure OS, and never has been. I don't want to give the impression that using a different OS will make you "unhackable" because that is also completely false, but as for worrying about viruses and spyware...that is primarily a Windows concern. I do not hate Windows. In fact, I actually use several different versions of Windows for work (I am a systems and network administrator.) They have a very nice looking OS, and also have a large number of very innovative ideas when it comes to Operating Systems. But the fact remains that it is obviously not made with security in mind. Although Microsoft is very adamant about fighting the ongoing virus threat, they still fail to fix the most fundamental security holes. Being fair to Microsoft, if they did choose to "rebuild" their system to be more secure, they would in fact have to give up some of the "ease of use" that is enjoyed by Windows users. Windows is basically like "computers for dummies" in terms of how easy it is to use, when compared to its counterparts which are slightly more complicated to grasp without some prior computer experience. As history has shown us time and time again, the easiest things to use are also usually the least safe :\ Sorry for the long post, and I can promise you this will be my last post in this thread  I just wanted to make myself a little more clear. | ||
|
Vex
Ireland454 Posts
| ||
| ||
