OT: Software Recommendations

[geoschmo]

It's not that other types of operating systems aren't vulnerable to viruses. For a virus to spread it has to be able to go from an infected system to one that is vulnerable and available. Windows is everywhere. It's used on millions and millions of computers, and the majority of the people using it aren't competant or interested in taking the time and effort to secure their systems. Other operating systems are way less common, and for the most part less-idiot friendly. So the majority of people that do use them will have the knowlege and take the time to keep them secure.

Also, the people that write the viruses are doing so in an effort to make an impact. If you want to make an impact you write a virus for an operating system that people actually use.

When other operating systems are used, they do get hacked. This might involved writing trojans or other code that we would classify as a virus. But it ususually doesn't spread like a virus for the reasons above. It's typically part of a direct and isolated attack on a specific network or system.

Could windows be made more secure. Certainly. Would doing so make it less user-friendly to the majority of idiots who use it? Definetly.

[Atrocities]

I understand what your saying and agree with your assesment 100%. I often wonder now if it is not the Anti-Virus industry that is now writing the bulk of these viruses in order to justify their existance. I mean I know they are not 100% behind it, but you just have to wonder what their actual %, if any, is. I mean they survive by selling anti-virus software and I will be Microsoft has a stake in one or two of the companies making anti-virus software. Whether they will admit it or not, I am sure that they do at some level.

I mean think about it, its a sweet deal. You write the virus, release it, and then tell everyone that if they buy your product, it will protect against the virus.. You just elect not to tell them that the viruses it protects against are the ones you wrote. Just sit back and rake in the doe and laugh all the way to the bank.

[geoschmo]

What I think is funny is that a lot of people will hear that and think it's a perfectly reasonable theory. But if I tried to say most vandalism was done by people in the house-painting industry, or that most arson was done by firefighters people would say I was a tin-foil crackpot.

[rdouglass]

deccan said:
Hmm, telco says the package includes a NAT secure capable modem / router whatever that means....

What that means is you'll have to provide a "translation" for the router to pass traffic to your FTP server.

For instance, within our network we have a web server with 3 separate web sites running on it. So I want to have one of the web sites available to outside folks. I have a translation config with one line that looks like this:

ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.13 1000 216.195.222.6 80 extendable

Now this line is specific to this Cisco router but the theory is the same. See, I have our DNS entry for our web site pointing to IP address 216.195.222.3 (port 80 is assumed for WWW protocol). What this code does is say that any requests to our web server need to be passed inside to the address 192.168.1.13:1000 (that's port 1000 'cause we have multiple instances if IIS running on that box).

What you should be able to do (if the router is NAT compatible) is something similar. You WILL have to have a static IP address for the CPU inside your network for this to function properly. Check your router documentation for NAT stuff.

Yeah, those tech support folks probably will not help you with this. They rarely ever go beyond the basic setup. In fact, if you ask, they'll probably tell you to hook a PC with DHCP up to it. If that can surf the web, then their responsibility ends there.

Does that help any?

[Fyron]

geoschmo said:
What I think is funny is that a lot of people will hear that and think it's a perfectly reasonable theory. But if I tried to say most vandalism was done by people in the house-painting industry, or that most arson was done by firefighters people would say I was a tin-foil crackpot.

The differences is that it is a lot easier to get away with writing and releasing a virus than it is to commit arson or vandalism.

Also, there are companies out there that write spyware that does nothing other than serve ads to you for their anti-spyware product, telling you that you are infected with spyware and that their program can remove it... Or they will have "ads" that infect you with some spyware and advertise their product. They then provide a free demo that will scan and detect the spyware that they infected you with, but do nothing about it. You then have to buy their program to remove the spyware. This is not crackpot tin-foil hat theory, there have been proven cases of this... It is not that great of a leap to suspect less scrupulous anti-virus companies of doing such a thing. The major companies probably don't, as they have too much to risk. But I bet there are little startup "companies" out there that are just trying to scam you out of money, like 9% of the rest of the internet (where the other 90% is porn, leaving about 1% for legitimate content)...

[Gandalf Parker]

This is a common subject in hacker Groups (Im a known regular in white-hat Groups and host a site for one)

Certain aspects are automatic in this subject..
A) it gets easier
B) it gets popular
C) it starts getting used by people who dont understand it enough to change defaults
D) it starts getting used by people who want to find a way around it
E) automated methods are created to search for and break the original

Does any this have to do with how secure something is? Not really. Security is a concern and an ongoing effort of course but doesnt have as much to do with how vulnerable or not vulnerable something is as much as other factors.

Windows makes major efforts to be user friendly, to add fun toys, and to be popular. And it becomes the #1 target for everything. Linux has seen that Red Hats efforts to become user friendly, add fun toys, and become popular made it #2 in both the good and bad points of that.

Mac and Unix are less popular. They have great security scores. Are they more secure or are they less targetted? A computer security tech would answer yes. ("binary true" yes to both). I wont bother to get into discussions about whether or not Windows programs are secure. The unarguable argument for me is that they are too popular for me to use if something less known offers me the same level of functionality.

By the way the same A-E is worthy consideration when thinking about what house security to get, what firewall to use, what car alarm to install, etc etc etc.

[geoschmo]

Imperator Fyron said:
The major companies probably don't, as they have too much to risk. But I bet there are little startup "companies" out there that are just trying to scam you out of money,

I don't disagree with this at all. I am quite sure there are some real scumbags out there. I didn't say nobody writes viruses and then tries to sell antivirus to stop it. Just as there have been documented cases of firefighters starting fires in their spare time. What I was disagreeing with was the idea that most (or the bulk of) viruses originate in this manner.

[Atrocities]

geoschmo said:
What I think is funny is that a lot of people will hear that and think it's a perfectly reasonable theory. But if I tried to say most vandalism was done by people in the house-painting industry, or that most arson was done by firefighters people would say I was a tin-foil crackpot.

You make an excellent point here Geo, but in the reality, fire fighters fight fires to save lives, vandels vandalize to make a statement, virus writes working for AV company do it for money. Wait... ok, your point is even more valid now.

I just hope that one day we a can look back on these virus writers and know that a great many of them did not work for the companies that we entrusted to kill the viruses they wrote.

[Phoenix-D]

Atrocities said:

You make an excellent point here Geo, but in the reality, fire fighters fight fires to save lives, vandels vandalize to make a statement, virus writes working for AV company do it for money. Wait... ok, your point is even more valid now.

I really do hate to tell you AT, but Geo is right. There ARE firefighters who start fires so they will have work to do and thus earn more money..

As for the Windows being infected more because its out more: may be true for viruses, but despite Windows servers not being the majority of web servers they ARE the majority of hacked and otherwise compromised web servers..