80 percent of viruses love Windows 7

By Syanide
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

TrueMonolith

Posted
Posted

I had a macbook in 2006, this year i went for a XPS.

Mac's are fine, but you always end up needing windows because not all software is available.

Before the mac fanboys come out and say "theres parallels for that", heres my rebuttal.

Why pay for 2 OS's and more expensive hardware.

Instead i can buy cheaper hardware and use the one OS that can do everything i want. Mac's arent a complete product, as a consumer, i dont see why i should pay for that, and thats why i went back to MS and Dell.

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
Instead i can buy cheaper hardware and use the one OS that can do everything i want. Mac's arent a complete product, as a consumer, i dont see why i should pay for that, and thats why i went back to MS and Dell.

Actually, I run Windows about twice a month, and that's only to check websites in Internet Explorer. Macs are a complete product for those who are just willing to change up how they work slightly. When I came from Windows, I had no trouble finding equivalents for just about every product I used on Windows, and, this is just a personal opinion, they were usually better than the Windows equivalents.

Collaborator

RealFduch

Posted
Posted

Why don't Spophos test whether Mac OS X and Linux are still vulnerable to the rm -rf ~/* "virus".

They should also run another test when they run it with sudo.

The logic is completely the same. The Sophos used trojans, not viruses (probably since a virus wouldn't be able to find any writeable .exe file to infect with UAC on). And troyan doen't really need mach system access to work. Look: Google Chome is sending/receiving data, executing scripts, downloading/uploading files, updating itself. Trojans are doing the same. The difference is very subtle and the problem of distinguinshing malware is generally unsolveable.

Grand Master

jonhapimp

Posted
Posted
How does a thread which is about an virus test turn into a Windows vs OS X competition :/ ? It baffles me, honestly.

because windows 7 is a threat to peoples lively hoods and people don't have lives :rofl:

this thread will be closed eventually anyways

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
Why don't Spophos test whether Mac OS X and Linux are still vulnerable to the rm -rf ~/* "virus".

They should also run another test when they run it with sudo.

The logic is completely the same. The Sophos used trojans, not viruses (probably since a virus wouldn't be able to find any writeable .exe file to infect with UAC on). And troyan doen't really need mach system access to work. Look: Google Chome is sending/receiving data, executing scripts, downloading/uploading files, updating itself. Trojans are doing the same. The difference is very subtle and the problem of distinguinshing malware is generally unsolveable.

Exactly. This has nothing to do with Windows' security mechanisms.

Explorer

MyDooM.

Posted
Posted
Why don't Spophos test whether Mac OS X and Linux are still vulnerable to the rm -rf ~/* "virus".

They should also run another test when they run it with sudo.

The logic is completely the same. The Sophos used trojans, not viruses (probably since a virus wouldn't be able to find any writeable .exe file to infect with UAC on). And troyan doen't really need mach system access to work. Look: Google Chome is sending/receiving data, executing scripts, downloading/uploading files, updating itself. Trojans are doing the same. The difference is very subtle and the problem of distinguinshing malware is generally unsolveable.

Listen to the man.

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
Why is that Mac users are so happy with there system or whatever they wanna call it, but yet they have to preach and lie to us that they do this and that, is it because maybe they are lying to themselves?

We're just trying to clean up the FUD, like all the Windows users in here cleaning up the FUD that Sophos is spreading.

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
Hacked, yea. Apple's managed to fix those vulnerabilities (usually involving third-party libraries in things like Safari or DNS). Viruses, not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone managed to create one that could outbreak.

In 2009 the hacker hacked OSX with a vulnerability he discovered the year before, that doesn't say much for their ability to swiftly patch exploits

The Pwn2Own contests are about getting attention for yourself, so of course people are going to concentrate their efforts of getting that headline.

Quoting the hacker:

"I hack Apple machines because OSX is the easiest platform to hack"

Sounds straightforward to me ;)

Collaborator

WatchTheSoup

Posted
Posted
Why is that Mac users are so happy with there system or whatever they wanna call it, but yet they have to preach and lie to us that they do this and that, is it because maybe they are lying to themselves?

If I paid $3000 for a machine with only $1000 of parts I'd be lying left and right too...

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted (edited)
In 2009 the hacker hacked OSX with a vulnerability he discovered the year before, that doesn't say much for their ability to swiftly patch exploits

I can't find where it says that the 2009 exploit was the same as the 2008 exploit. Also, that same day, Firefox and IE8 were both hacked.

By the way, Safari 4 has no currently known vulnerabilities. Just sayin'.

Quoting the hacker:

"I hack Apple machines because OSX is the easiest platform to hack"

Sounds straightforward to me ;)

He's also an avid Mac user (which means it's probably the OS he knows best), and hacked it because he believes it'll make the platform stronger. Just sayin'. ;)

If I paid $3000 for a machine with only $1000 of parts I'd be lying left and right too...

Hrmmmm...

dell.png

vs.

mac.png

Edited by Elliott
Mentor

Skulltrail

Posted
Posted

This was already posted by one of the News Writers here on Neowin. The original article pwned this article involving Sophos because Sophos exposed the Windows 7 operating system with the top 10 worst malware in the world. How was Windows 7 supposed to survive such infamous viruses? If it did, there would be no purpose for antiviruses.

Mentor

ScottKin

Posted
Posted

This is an absolute crock - and I'll tell you why.

Many of you know of me here, and a smaller percentage know of me from other places, forums and sites along the Intarwebs. You know me as "ScottKin" or "ScottK". I've been involved, in one way or another and in an "in-the-wings" bits of stuff on the Intarwebs, so I've got some hefty experience on the Intarwebs and in Computing as well; in "geek-speek", you can say that I =! "noob".

Now, I have a rather small testing lab here at my home office / studio that is powered-on and working at least 99.98% of the time. I have always had one piece of computing equipment in my posession since 1986, and every one of them has been suitable for my needs (Programming, CAD, Design, Illustration & Graphics, Desktop Publishing, Web Site Design, Audio & Sound Design, etc.).

Since 1986, I have encountered TWO Viruses, 0 Trojans and 3 cases of Spyware / Malware. The 3 cases of Spyware / Malware actually were reported by one of the more popular anti-Spyware / Malware software packages in the market today (and I'm not going to divulge which one it was in order that I don't disparage an otherwise-reliable software company's name in public), and those ended-up to be false-positives. The two viruses were contained on a floppy-disk that a friend gave me, and when my system then became infected I destroyed the disk.

Since I became active on the Internet in 1993, I have never received any kind of virus, trojan or any similar kind of infection on any of my systems, outside of the previously mentioned events. There was a lot of hype back in 2000, where it was said that when a Windows system is placed on an un-protected broadband or standard ethernet connection to the Internet that the said system was compromized within 10 minutes of placing it on the Internet; this, according to my own personal experience, is utter "bovine fecal excrement". If it's true, then I must have special super-powers of keeping my systems secure simply due to my proximity to said systems. I regularly help friends & acquaintances with their computer problems, and about 1/2 of them involve removing viruses and other malware from their systems; nearly all of those were exposed due to their visiting websites with questionable content.

So, how do I keep my systems from being compromized? It's very easy:

1) Use some kind of anti-virus to protect my systems from the common viral vectors, and some kind of anti-spyware / malware tools to ensure that you are protected.

2) Don't go to pr0n sites - ever. Pr0n sites are a massive viral vector, due to their popularity

3) Don't download and/or install software that was obtained via illegitimate sources

4) Don't download tools and programs that assist in cracking or patching software that was obtained via Rule #3, and don't even visit the sites that have those bits.

5) Don't to go websites that you aren't sure about, unless you are willing to get bit.

6) Don't use p2p software to download anything.

I would wager that at least 80% of infected systems were compromized by not following at least 2 of these rules.

In real life, why would you want to walk down a dark alley or corridor in an area that you know is rife with crime? You wouldn't intentionally expose yourself or your loved-ones to anything inherently dangerous.

Why do the same on the Internet?

--ScottKin

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
He's also an avid Mac user (which means it's probably the OS he knows best), and hacked it because he believes it'll make the platform stronger. Just sayin'. ;)

His motives are largely irrelevant. The fact is the mac always gets hacked first, there is a reason for that, and it is simple. Most hackers say that OSX is actually poorly designed from a security standpoint. Just sayin' ;)

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
His motives are largely irrelevant. The fact is the mac always gets hacked first, there is a reason for that, and it is simple. Most hackers say that OSX is actually poorly designed from a security standpoint. Just sayin' ;)

Erm, except he didn't hack OS X. He hacked Safari via a third-party library exploit in order to gain access to the system, and the same hack worked on Safari for Windows. I also think you missed where I said another hacker also hacked Firefox and IE8 on Windows within minutes. Still slower than what it took to hack Safari, but like I said, that Safari exploit has been patched and there are currently no known vulnerabilities in Safari 4. Not to say that there aren't any, and it'll probably get hacked in nanoseconds or whatever in Pwn2Own 2010, but right now there are no known vulnerabilities.

Mentor

Neoauld

Posted
Posted
You really gonna show me dell prices and try and compare to Mac prices? I built my system a year ago under 1500. Btw do mac users now have x64 version of adobe products yet? I understand adobe didn't wanna do it for Mac at first, I wonder why.

cause Mac's arent actually 64bit, would be a waste of time

Grand Master

hdood

Posted
Posted
cause Mac's arent actually 64bit, would be a waste of time

All current Macs are 64-bit, and OS X has run 64-bit software for years. The only issue is that the legacy API Carbon is only available as 32-bit, because it is deprecated and Apple wants people to not use it. They originally said they were going to make it available in 64-bit years ago (which is what Adobe was counting on), but then canceled it. In order for Adobe's software to be 64-bit, they would have to port their software to Cocoa, something that is a substantial amount of work (something Adobe is allergic to).

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
Posted
You really gonna show me dell prices and try and compare to Mac prices? I built my system a year ago under 1500. Btw do mac users now have x64 version of adobe products yet? I understand adobe didn't wanna do it for Mac at first, I wonder why.

What's wrong with comparing two OEMs? News flash buddy: most people don't build their own computers.

And no, like hdood said, Adobe are quite lazy and haven't updated their products to Cocoa yet, which would give them 64-bit capability. Lightroom 3 is the first 64-bit Adobe app for OS X.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.