Are we Linux users arrogant about security?


Recommended Posts

Ok.  I'm going to drop my 2 cents (I feel it is needed).  I apologize in advance if any points I'm going to bring here were already noted/discussed during the course of the thread.  I read the first page and a half and stopped when I saw it turn into a flame war.

Windows vs Mac vs Linux vs BSD vs Unix

Note: I gave each one their own entry because they all use different code to function for all intensive purposes.

I'll address the last 3.  Historically all 3 have different mechanisms of how they function.  Unix is owned by The Open Group.  Neither Linux or BSD share any code with them.  Conversely both Linux and BSD share no code as well.  They even have different kernel models.  Linux and BSD was functionally based on Unix but only in function.  The the code is implemented different and they didn't have access to the original Unix source when creating their variations.

Mac (as of Mac OS 9) is based on some open source code.  They borrow code from HP/UX and FreeBSD.  The FreeBSD part is in the microkernel and some support tools only so to say it is BSD-based is a stretch.  It is as much based on BSD as Windows is on Linux (which borrows some Linux structure and mechanics).

So then let's get to it.

Majority of viruses target Windows because they have the majority market share.  If you are going to infect machines it makes sense to go for the biggest footprint.  This does NOT make Windows any more or less secure than any other platform.  It just means there are more people going after it and they are doing a more thorough job.  While there have been many infections I'm not aware of any that can't be removed.  The worst case scenario usually involves a wipe of the OS and maybe you have to go as far as wiping the MBR.  In the case of old infections you also threw out your floppies since chances are they got infected too...

On the Mac side they had the "benefit" security through obscurity.  As many professionals will state this is not a real security measure.  It just means you are not a target yet.  So for the longest time they didn't have any actual viruses written for them.  As of right now I'm not aware of any real viruses still.  The only malicious software comes in the form of malware which tends to be categorized as a virus.  So if you go that way then yes Macs do have viruses now since they lost that "benefit".

Most are minor however Macs also have the only known permanent infection that I'm immediately aware of called Thunderstrike and Thunderstrike 2.  This particular infection takes the form of an EFI injection attack while SMM (System Management Mode) is unlocked (which it isn't supposed to be ever unlocked during normal operation).  In technical terms SMM is Ring -2.  Your "full admin" access is Ring 0.  Ring -1 and -2 is never supposed to be visible to a running system.  If your system gets compromised then any thunderbolt devices with embedded option roms are potentially affected and you might as well throw out the machine that is now infected since I do not believe there is a known way to clean an infected unit.  Both are spreadable via physical means with some thunderbolt devices since the infection is designed to spread through those devices.  Any Macs that come in contact with an infected thunderbolt device can potentially be infected as well.  Thunderstrike 2 can be transmitted remotely via any number of web exploits as long as the attacker can gain elevated access to the machine.

Linux/Unix/BSD have their fair share of infections.  I won't go into details on them but they also have a their fair share of privilege elevation attacks that allow unauthorized individuals to gain access to more than they are supposed to.  There are viruses, worms, rootkits written for these platforms so anyone running these should be diligent and watch for them.  I'm not aware of actual malware for these platforms so that means any actual infections are not always visibly present.

With the last one it reminds me of my first infection on a Windows 3.1 computer.  I didn't know it was present until I ran an up to date scanner.  At that point it had managed to infect half the files in the system... There was never any visual evidence that I had contracted one.  It is not like now where if you have an infection it is really obvious.

In regards to the Mac attack.  The same attack method is theoretically possible on the PC side due to historical architecture changes but has been addressed already by major vendors.

Source regarding Thunderstrike 2: https://trmm.net/Thunderstrike_2
Source regarding Unix trademark: http://www.unix.org/trademark.html

Disclaimer: This post was written by someone who uses Windows on 2 machines, Mac on 1, and Ubuntu on 1.  I also use Ubuntu on 2 server systems that are internet accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but that's plain wrong. Please name your source.

Take the recent Windigo for example:

Just what happens after the Windigo malware successfully infects a server? In September 2013, ESET researchers successfully captured network traffic for a Cdorked-infected server that was acting as a reverse proxy, and found that over a two-day period, 1.1 million IP addresses were routed through the server to a malicious website hosting an exploit kit. According to ESET, 1% of all of those IP addresses were successfully infected, meaning that in just 48 hours the attackers successfully brought 100,000 compromised systems under their control.

The compromised systems were handled differently, based on their location. For example, systems based in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States received Windows click-fraud malware Boaxxe.G, while others received a dropper called Leechole, which then installed a spam proxy called Glupteba.M.

http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-and-breaches/linux-takeover-artists-fling-35m-spam-messages-daily/d/d-id/1127787

The Windows desktop is always the end goal for malware infections. Compromised servers are merely a tool to distribute them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Majority of viruses target Windows because they have the majority market share.  If you are going to infect machines it makes sense to go for the biggest footprint.  This does NOT make Windows any more or less secure than any other platform.  It just means there are more people going after it and they are doing a more thorough job.  While there have been many infections I'm not aware of any that can't be removed.  The worst case scenario usually involves a wipe of the OS and maybe you have to go as far as wiping the MBR.  In the case of old infections you also threw out your floppies since chances are they got infected too...

If marketshare was the only determinant of targeting, then Android would have the majority of malware. It doesn't. In fact, it has remarkably few encounter rates/infections compared to the much smaller Windows desktop market. This is in no small part to infrequent and disabled by default side loading, and well curated stores. So to make the claim that Windows is no less secure than other platforms belies the statistical reality. Even Neowin's own limited reporting on the matter illustrates the problem:

encounter_rates.thumb.jpg.8fa117b155b8fc

And that's only what Microsoft's own software detected and reported. The real number is sure to be far higher. A 20% encounter rate is enormous. I dare you to find any other OS approaching that.

Linux/Unix/BSD have their fair share of infections.  I won't go into details on them but they also have a their fair share of privilege elevation attacks that allow unauthorized individuals to gain access to more than they are supposed to.

You're talking about potential vulnerabilities (hypothetical exploits at best), not malware infections. They aren't the same thing. Linux servers and ubiquitous neglected embedded devices such as routers are the only targets. The former because of their ability to distribute Windows malware, and the latter for their DDOS potential. The Linux desktop isn't a viable target because 1) Too much variety. The same software and configurations (a homogeneous environment) are essential for attacks to work. 2) GNU/Linux distros have built-in software repositories which are analogous to curated App stores. 3) Linux users tend to be more tech savvy. I know my system inside and out because I built it from the ground up. Windows is almost a total blackbox unless you employ specialist tools, and even then, you still don't have that fined grained control that you get with GNU/Linux.

As for OS X, doesn't it have a popular curated store much like iOS? That alone can negate a lot of threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If marketshare was the only determinant of targeting, then Android would have the majority of malware. It doesn't. In fact, it has remarkably few encounter rates/infections compared to the much smaller Windows desktop market. This is in no small part to infrequent and disabled by default side loading, and well curated stores. So to make the claim that Windows is no less secure than other platforms belies the statistical reality. Even Neowin's own limited reporting on the matter illustrates the problem:

encounter_rates.thumb.jpg.8fa117b155b8fc

And that's only what Microsoft's own software detected and reported. The real number is sure to be far higher. A 20% encounter rate is enormous. I dare you to find any other OS approaching that.

You're talking about potential vulnerabilities (hypothetical exploits at best), not malware infections. They aren't the same thing. Linux servers and ubiquitous neglected embedded devices such as routers are the only targets. The former because of their ability to distribute Windows malware, and the latter for their DDOS potential. The Linux desktop isn't a viable target because 1) Too much variety. The same software and configurations (a homogeneous environment) are essential for attacks to work. 2) GNU/Linux distros have built-in software repositories which are analogous to curated App stores. 3) Linux users tend to be more tech savvy. I know my system inside and out because I built it from the ground up. Windows is almost a total blackbox unless you employ specialist tools, and even then, you still don't have that fined grained control that you get with GNU/Linux.

As for OS X, doesn't it have a popular curated store much like iOS? That alone can negate a lot of threats.

Windows on the desktop has a larger market than Android and Android comes in second as most targeted, so yeah market share appears to be a determinant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If marketshare was the only determinant of targeting, then Android would have the majority of malware. It doesn't. In fact, it has remarkably few encounter rates/infections compared to the much smaller Windows desktop market. This is in no small part to infrequent and disabled by default side loading, and well curated stores. So to make the claim that Windows is no less secure than other platforms belies the statistical reality. Even Neowin's own limited reporting on the matter illustrates the problem:

encounter_rates.thumb.jpg.8fa117b155b8fc

And that's only what Microsoft's own software detected and reported. The real number is sure to be far higher. A 20% encounter rate is enormous. I dare you to find any other OS approaching that.

You're talking about potential vulnerabilities (hypothetical exploits at best), not malware infections. They aren't the same thing. Linux servers and ubiquitous neglected embedded devices such as routers are the only targets. The former because of their ability to distribute Windows malware, and the latter for their DDOS potential. The Linux desktop isn't a viable target because 1) Too much variety. The same software and configurations (a homogeneous environment) are essential for attacks to work. 2) GNU/Linux distros have built-in software repositories which are analogous to curated App stores. 3) Linux users tend to be more tech savvy. I know my system inside and out because I built it from the ground up. Windows is almost a total blackbox unless you employ specialist tools, and even then, you still don't have that fined grained control that you get with GNU/Linux.

As for OS X, doesn't it have a popular curated store much like iOS? That alone can negate a lot of threats.

 

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows on the desktop has a larger market than Android and Android comes in second as most targeted, so yeah market share appears to be a determinant. 

Sigh..

Worldwide Device Shipments by Operating System
Source Year Android iOS/OS X Windows Others
Gartner[3] 2014 48.61% 11.04% 14.0% 26.34%
Gartner[4] 2013 38.51% 10.12% 13.98% 37.41%
Gartner[5] 2012 22.8% 9.6% 15.62% 51.98%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Worldwide_device_shipments

48% vs 14%. I'll let you work out which one is bigger. Even iOS has almost the same marketshare as Windows, yet it has virtually no malware. I guess that blows your theory out of the water huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh..

Worldwide Device Shipments by Operating System
Source Year Android iOS/OS X Windows Others
Gartner[3] 2014 48.61% 11.04% 14.0% 26.34%
Gartner[4] 2013 38.51% 10.12% 13.98% 37.41%
Gartner[5] 2012 22.8% 9.6% 15.62% 51.98%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Worldwide_device_shipments

48% vs 14%. I'll let you work out which one is bigger. Even iOS has almost the same marketshare as Windows, yet it has virtually no malware. I guess that blows your theory out of the water huh?

Nice numbers. Let us not forget that Windows machines from 15 years ago are still running? Your numbers don't show that, do they? Device shipments do not take into account already shipped machines and Windows has been around for quite a while. 

Nice attempt though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

App rates, not infection rates. There's a difference. And look where it's occurring:

The United Arab Emirates was reported as the country with the highest rate of malicious app download volume at 13.79 percent. Myanmar and Vietnam came second and third. The United States and United Kingdom did not make the top ten list (I wonder why??).

"The UAE recorded the highest malicious android app download volume, overtaking Myanmar, which placed first in the previous quarter," the report says. "Six new countries figured in this month's top 10, which may indicate an increase in mobile device use and/or attacks against such devices in these locations."

Lo and behold, third party app stores in the middle east and asia have a malware problem. They pirate APK's and repackage them with trojans included. 99% of Android malware comes from those stores, none of which anyone in the west has ever seen or heard of. Compare that to Windows, where encounter/infection rates are high everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice numbers. Let us not forget that Windows machines from 15 years ago are still running? Your numbers don't show that, do they? Device shipments do not take into account already shipped machines and Windows has been around for quite a while. 

Nice attempt though. 

Microsoft's Chief Operating Officer, Kevin Turner, has said that his company faces a tough future, where he has said that Microsoft operating systems (in whichever form) only power a small amount of devices across the world.

During a presentation at Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference (WPC), Turner said: "The reality is the world's shifted, the world's evolved. We now measure ourselves in the total device space. And in the total device space we have a 14% share of devices, total worldwide devices". The new figures come from Gartner, which estimated that Windows share of the shipped devices market in 2013 was just 14%, and would decrease this year to 13.7%.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/39129/microsoft-admits-its-os-market-share-is-14-android-is-dominating/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In 2011, there were 1.25 billion Windows PCs. 4 years later, that number has not gone down but has gone up. It has slowed, but it has not gone backwards. That is not 14% of the market, I am afraid. Android had 1 billion activations in 2014, 3 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

App rates, not infection rates. There's a difference. And look where it's occurring:

Lo and behold, third party app stores in the middle east and asia have a malware problem. They pirate APK's and repackage them with trojans included. 99% of Android malware comes from those stores, none of which anyone in the west has ever seen or heard of. Compare that to Windows, where encounter/infection rates are high everywhere.

 

 

You may have missed the second link, these are infection rates.  These numbers are even more damaging when we use your selective operating system marketshare numbers which suppose Android has more units out there than Windows does.  That 10% of devices means there are more android devices out in the wild infected than the 6% of supposed lower marketsahre PC's - those are US numbers, the numbers are even worse in Australia according to this article; and with your own statements even worse in Asia and parts of Europe. Android has a bigger problem with malware than Windows does.  Whats sad is it has taken Android less than 3 years to becomd the bloated cesspool of malware to outpace Windows which has been on the market for more than 25.  Android is the least secure out of any operating system, this is what happens when you have an advertising company (google) that pretends to be a software development house.  Android was built by design to be an ad engine for a company with little ethics; and so the other bottom-dwellers have only latched on to deploy their malware onto the preferred OS which caters to malware and other forms of ads/revenue generation.

 

 
 
 
Android devices are now attacked more often by malware than PCs, according to a report released Tuesday by a cyber security software maker.
 
The 2013 Security Threat Report from Sophos revealed that almost 10 percent of Android devices in the U.S. have experienced a malware attack over a three-month period in 2012, compared to about 6 percent of PCs.
 
The situation is worse in Australia, where more than 10 percent of Android devices have been attacked by malware, compared with about 8 percent for PCs.
 
With 52.2 percent of the smartphone market in the United States, Android has become a tempting target, Sophos reported. "Targets this large are difficult for malware authors to resist," the report said. "And they aren’t resisting – attacks against Android are increasing rapidly."
Edited by PSG1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In 2011, there were 1.25 billion Windows PCs. 4 years later, that number has not gone down but has gone up. It has slowed, but it has not gone backwards. That is not 14% of the market, I am afraid.

New devices are what counts. Android already has 1.4 billion active users despite only being 7 years old. How does Microsoft arrive at its figure precisely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New devices are what counts. 

Not when it comes to malware. Powered up and running devices are what matters.

Using that logic, Target and many others would have never been hacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's the source? by the way, I already know where that figure comes from. It's licences sold, not computers sold. That's why Microsoft doesn't use it as a metric anymore. Remember the hundreds of millions of Windows 8 licences sold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's the source? by the way, I already know where that figure comes from. It's licences sold, not computers sold. That's why Microsoft doesn't use it as a metric anymore. Remember the hundreds of millions of Windows 8 licences sold?

You cannot be serious right now, LOL...If you are talking about licenses sold, you better differentiate between Android devices activated and those actually being used as well.  That too, will differ greatly. Why? Becuase we all know Android devices don't last as long as PCs and are very much disposable.

Just look at this (now somewhat old) figure:

https://redmondmag.com/articles/2015/04/08/windows-xp-usage.aspx

Do the math to figure out how many Windows PCs are out there on the net and you will see the numbers are not hard to see for yourself. 

 

Anyway...

I had already become disillusioned with this conversation when you claimed that market share only mattered for new devices when discussing malware. That is nothing short of ridiculous and you know it. You just keep kicking that goalpost further and further out of reach and I am done playing the game.

img_1625.jpg?w=656

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot be serious right now, LOL...If you are talking about licenses sold, you better differentiate between Android devices activated and those actually being used as well.  That too, will differ greatly. Why? Becuase we all know Android devices don't last as long as PCs and are very much disposable.

I already stated that there are 1.4 billion active Android users. Contrast that with Microsoft's counting of imaginary licences and/or PC's/installations that have long since been forgotten. Regardless of the precise figures, it's still larger than Windows. Thus your false equivalency of marketshare and malware encounters/infections is laid bare.

As for PSG1's claims, that's from a single three month period in 2012. Google has made great strides against malware since then. I've never encountered a single piece of malware on the Play Store. Anecdotal perhaps, but I can't say the same for Windows at any time in the past decade.

No side loading (by default) and a robust app store makes malware all but irrelevant. iOS confirms that.

For devices that use only applications downloaded in Google Play, the rate of dangerous applications was even less than 0.15%, according to Google.

http://www.hilyts.com/2015/04/04/google-reduced-android-malware-by-50-in-2014/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I already stated that there are 1.4 billion active Android users. Contrast that with Microsoft's counting of imaginary licences and/or PC's/installations that have long since been forgotten. Regardless of the precise figures, it's still larger than Windows. Thus your false equivalency of marketshare and malware encounters/infections is laid bare.

As for PSG1's claims, that's from a single three month period in 2012. Google has made great strides against malware since then. I've never encountered a single piece of malware on the Play Store. Anecdotal perhaps, but I can't say the same for Windows at any time in the past decade.

No side loading (by default) and a robust app store makes malware all but irrelevant. iOS confirms that.

http://www.hilyts.com/2015/04/04/google-reduced-android-malware-by-50-in-2014/ 

 

So you also missed the third link that I posted from October 2015, did google make these big strides in security since last month?  Fantastic, what have they been doing for the last 7 years?.  Read the part about relying only on your holy grail of 'curated app stores' its simply not enough.  The vulnerabilities are at the OS level, when you cannot patch the OS level because the OS was designed by google to be altered by carriers and manufacturers then patches become irrelevant because they never happen - which is exactly the current state of Android.  This is a deficiency by google and is the primary reason this operating system (android) is a pile of junk. 

It doesn't matter what strides Google has falsely committed to - when Samsung is the number #1 distributor of android hardware and they drag their feet deploying updates - then its meaningless how secure Google claims android is.  At the end of the day the OS is still vulnerable.  It is vulnerable because the higher the marketshare the more reasons people have to attacking it - mainly for profit.  Its also vulnerable because of the wild west architectural design decision google decided android would have - where device manufacturers get to choose what gets updated and what does not on their schedule.  I choose to believe real researchers - and they state not to rely only on curated app stores as the vulnerabilities exist outside of only applications - they exist operating system wide; I don't trust what some random guy on neowin tells me his anecdotal 'evidence' is. 

IOS proves that providing updates is what keeps the operating system from being overtaken by malware authors.  If you take a look at secunia.org - the majority of security vulnerabilities on Windows are coming in from the application level; not OS level; and the majority of these applications are not Microsoft developed, they are from adobe, sun/oracle and apple.  Microsoft offers substantial updates to the system level on a weekly and sometimes daily basis; maybe a curated app store could in the case of Windows help stem the tide of malware coming in from the app level?  I'll agree that curated app stores provide some protection to application level deployment of malware; however without the OS level being protected  (android deficiency) you are at a much greater risk and one that is on the blind assumption that if you don't download any unknown applications then you are 'safe', this is the same false logic that mac users assumed about their machines not able to get 'viruses' and plenty have been infected by malware in the last few years.  Malware/viruses - at the end of the day its unwanted software that can cause harm and potentially financial damage to a person not protecting their computing devices.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2015/10/14/Nearly-90-percent-of-Android-devices-vulnerable-to-malware-research-says/2401444850665/

 

CAMBRIDGE, England, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- Researchers at Britain's University of Cambridge have concluded that nearly 90 percent of the world's Android devices are vulnerable to malware attacks.

The study concluded that, on average over the last four years, 87 percent of devices running an Android operating system have been susceptible to malicious attacks from malware apps.

"This is because manufacturers have not provided regular security updates," researchers wrote in a blog post. "Some manufacturers are much better than others, however."

The researchers said their study has indicated that devices manufactured by Google, LG and Motorola have been more resistant to the malware than others. Part of the reason, they say, is because they offer regular Android updates.

"The problem with the lack of updates to Android devices is well known and recently Google and Samsung have committed to shipping security updates every month," the blog post said.

The research, which will be presented at the Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones and Mobile Device, was partly funded by Google, CBS News reported.

The study referred concerned consumers to research each manufacturer's malware risk at AndroidVulnerabilities.org.

"We recommend users only install apps from Google's Play Store since it performs additional safety checks on apps," the blog post said. "Unfortunately Google can only do so much, and recent Android security problems have shown that this is not enough to protect users. Devices require updates from manufacturers, and the majority of devices aren't getting them."

Edited by PSG1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2015, 06:58:01, PSG1 said:

Once again hypotheticals and scare stories but no tangible real world malware threats. Contrast that with Windows' real world epidemic:

 

malware_rates.thumb.jpg.edc59351f1c8a0d4

https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-offers-new-data-on-malware-infection-rates-worldwide

 

iOS' lack of malware can be attributed to its walled garden approach, not just because of regular updates. We know this because the most successful attack to date against it involved getting developers to unknowingly distribute it via a trojaned XCode. Apple, as well as Google, have demonstrated that with the right ecosystem and security precautions (no default side loading), the threat of malware is significantly reduced despite a larger or equal marketshare to Windows. Even Microsoft is trying to achieve this, albeit unsuccessfully, though its own App Store.

 

Marshmallow's new permission system is also a game changer for malware trying to sneak in and access broad system functions.

 

It's enough to say that Windows is far and above the riskiest OS in terms of malware threats facing its users. That being said, if its App Store were more compelling, I have no doubt malware would decrease on the platform.

 

However, this thread is more directed at GNU/Linux desktop users than Android. Its built-in repositories are an analog for, and arguably a precursor of, App Stores. That affords a similar level of protection unlike an OS such as Windows where its users almost exclusively obtain software manually via the internet along with the concomitant risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, simplezz said:

Once again hypotheticals and scare stories but no tangible real world malware threats. Contrast that with Windows' real world epidemic:

 

malware_rates.thumb.jpg.edc59351f1c8a0d4

https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-offers-new-data-on-malware-infection-rates-worldwide

 

iOS' lack of malware can be attributed to its walled garden approach, not just because of regular updates. We know this because the most successful attack to date against it involved getting developers to unknowingly distribute it via a trojaned XCode. Apple, as well as Google, have demonstrated that with the right ecosystem and security precautions (no default side loading), the threat of malware is significantly reduced despite a larger or equal marketshare to Windows. Even Microsoft is trying to achieve this, albeit unsuccessfully, though its own App Store.

 

Marshmallow's new permission system is also a game changer for malware trying to sneak in and access broad system functions.

 

It's enough to say that Windows is far and above the riskiest OS in terms of malware threats facing its users. That being said, if its App Store were more compelling, I have no doubt malware would decrease on the platform.

 

However, this thread is more directed at GNU/Linux desktop users than Android. Its built-in repositories are an analog for, and arguably a precursor of, App Stores. That affords a similar level of protection unlike an OS such as Windows where its users almost exclusively obtain software manually via the internet along with the concomitant risks.

 

 

You seriously posted a chart that has nothing but 3rd world countries in it - countries which heavily use pirated software - software which is almost always heavily infected with malware and claim this is some increate in malware?  If you intentionally jump in the water with sharks the chances of getting bit are quite high.  Your chart lacks any US or Europe statistics at all.

 

While you post dubious charts to support your far fetched theory, heres a good one:  http://www.csoonline.com/article/2133864/malware-cybercrime/android-now--mobile-world-s-equivalent--of-windows-for-hackers.html

 

 

Quote

The difference between Windows and Android malware is that the latter is evolving much quicker, says Kaspersky Lab researcher

 

 

While you like to miss my links, remember to conveniently miss this one from Feb 2015:  http://bgr.com/2015/02/17/android-vs-windows-malware-infection/

 

 

Quote

A new report published by Alcatel-Lucent’s Motive Security Labs division says that no less than 16 million mobile devices were hit by malware last year,

ZDNet reports , which is an increase of 25% compared to 2013 — comparatively, last year malware infections rose by 20% across the board.

 

Your claim that the picture of Android has improved from 2013 is unfortunately been proven wrong.  The report says that in the second half of 2014 alone, there were as many Android devices infected with malware as Windows laptops.
 
 

Your 'curated app store' shows that there were as many infected Android devices as Windows.  So if you claim that Windows allows anyone to install applications from any source, why is Android with its curated crapstore getting the same number of infections?  Your theory just doesn't pan out when we face it with the REAL facts; not bunk charts that you pull out of nowhere and have nothing to do with your theories.

 

And another one: http://blogs.wsj.com/personal-technology/2015/02/04/android-malware-removed-from-google-play-store-after-millions-of-downloads/

 

 

Quote

Android Malware Removed From Google Play Store After Millions of Downloads

 

 

The curated crapstore was distributing out infected applications to millions of users.  Millions of users who have their head in the sand just as you do thinking if they download from the crapstore they will be safe.

 

Stagefright and Stagefright 2: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/10/06/google-issues-android-patches-for-stagefright-2-for-some-users/

 

OS level holes that infect a billion+ android devices.  

 

The operating system cannot be updated because of the wildwest approach google took to allowing carriers and oems to make modifications to the system.  This causes the operating system to be a cluster f*ck hodgepodge bolted together pile of crap that it is; and the reason it is the most vulnerable OS there is.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PSG1 said:

You seriously posted a chart that has nothing but 3rd world countries in it - countries which heavily use pirated software - software which is almost always heavily infected with malware and claim this is some increate in malware?  If you intentionally jump in the water with sharks the chances of getting bit are quite high.  Your chart lacks any US or Europe statistics at all.

I'm merely responding in kind. You linked to a zdnet article further up which had non-western countries dominating the top ten list in the same way. The difference with my chart is that it has the worldwide average (21.58%), something your article doesn't provide. However, even looking at the non-western countries, the encounter/infections are more than double on Windows.

 

As you said, it's the same reason why Android malware is higher in the Middle east and Asia - Piracy. Specifically in Android's case, third party app stores uploaded with pirated apps that have trojans included. It's restricted to those kinds of regions though. Whereas with Windows, there's a 20% encounter rate world wide.

 

Quote

You're right that is a good article:

Quote

Nevertheless, infection rates remain very low. For example, in watching Obad over a three-day period in June, Kaspersky found that attempts to install the malware reached only 0.15% of all infection tries by programs.

 

Part of the reason for the low infection rate overall is a paucity of channels for distributing malware. Most infections today occur through downloading malicious code tucked in an app found in an online app store, other than the official Google Play store.

Most of the users of those third-party stores are in Asia and Russia. In the U.S., smartphone users favor Google Play, which scans for malware.

 

The vast majority of malware written today still targets the much more profitable Windows PC.

 

Quote
Quote

A new report published by Alcatel-Lucent’s Motive Security Labs division says that no less than 16 million mobile devices were hit by malware last year,

ZDNet reports , which is an increase of 25% compared to 2013 — comparatively, last year malware infections rose by 20% across the board.

Your claim that the picture of Android has improved from 2013 is unfortunately been proven wrong.  The report says that in the second half of 2014 alone, there were as many Android devices infected with malware as Windows laptops.

Mobile malware, not malware in general. That's right, 50% of mobile malware infections are actually Windows machines. In addition to traditional Windows desktop malware. And to put that in perspective, only 0.68% of devices that access Alcatel's mobile network were deemed to be infected, including those Windows machines using dongles/smartphone tethering. Hardly earth shattering.

 

Quote

Most people are surprised to find such a high proportion of Windows/PC devices involved. These Windows/PCs are connected to the mobile network via dongles and mobile Wi-Fi devices or simply tethered through smartphones. They are responsible for about 50% of the malware infections observed. This is because these devices are still the favorite of hardcore professional cybercriminals who have a huge investment in the Windows malware ecosystem. As the mobile network becomes the access network of choice for many Windows PCs, the malware moves with them.

https://resources.alcatel-lucent.com/asset/184652

 

Whoops! :rofl:

 

And there's more:

Quote

Android phones and tablets are responsible for about 50% of the malware infections observed. Currently most mobile malware is distributed as “Trojanized” apps and Android offers the easiest target for this because of its open app environment. Specifically, the following Android issues have been observed:

  • Android apps can be downloaded from third-party app stores and web sites

That's what Android malware comes down to. It's next to non-existent on Play or Amazon. 99% exists on dodgy third party stores in Asia and the Middleeast. That's why there's such a disparity between the scare stories you post and the reality of western Android users. Properly curated stores aren't rampant with piracy, thus they don't have loads of repackaged trojanised apps.

 

And if you take a look at the top residential / threats in the pdf from your source, you'll see it's all win32:

  • Win32.BankingTrojan.Carberp 10.14%
  • Win32.Bot.ZeroAccess2 7.20%
  • Win32.Adware.iBryte 11.65%

And so on. Then there's the most prolific malware which is, drum roll.., you guessed it, once again Windows: Virus:Win32/Ramnit.I

 

If there's one thing that's clear by now, it's that your claims simply don't hold up to scrutiny. You completely misinterpreted Alcatel's report as all malware, where in fact it was malware running through their mobile network. And even then, 50% of it was coming from Windows machines :woot:

 

You're making it too easy for me PSG1 ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.