backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Iketh.. on Oct 18 at 2:50 AM


Unbeknowst to you, your computer could be a double agent, committing cybercrime as part of a internet-connected botnet. Over 2.2 million American PCs are part of some botnet, according to Microsoft.  (Source: Ubisoft)
U.S. leads the world in botnet virus infection rates

According to a new 240-page security report from Microsoft dubbed the Security Intelligence Report, America is among the most infected countries in the world when it comes to botnets.  The report uses information collected in the first half of 2010 via the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool.

Over 2.2 million PCs in the U.S. are infected with a virus that makes them part of one of the internet's massive botnets.  The term "botnet" refers to a group of connected computers that can be used for ill purposes such as spamming, distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, and mass credit card fraud.

Brazil came in second place for most infected computers, with 550,000 botnet-infected PCs.  Per computer population, though South Korea had the highest rate (though its total number of infected machines is lower than that of the U.S. or Brazil).  In South Korea 14.6 out of 1,000 PCs are in a botnet, versus 5.2 computers out of 1,000 in the U.S.

Cliff Evans, head of security and identity at Microsoft UK, comments to 
BBC News, "Most people have this idea of a virus and how it used to announce itself.  Few people know about botnets."

Fewer people perhaps know about Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool (MRT).  MRT has been is a free tool Microsoft includes with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.  First released in 2005, the tool is easy to run -- just go to "Start", type "run" in the search bar, and then type "mrt" (case insensitive) in the resulting popup.  The tool will then activate and be ready to scan your computer and remove many common types of malware.

Perhaps if everyone learns how to use the MRT, America can escape earning the dubious distinction of being the world's biggest botnet participant in 2011.  Given the general public's ignorance of security, that seems unlikely, though.

Despite the difficulty in getting the public to practice proper security, Microsoft is taking steps to try to win the war against botnet masters on its own.  The company recently seized control over 276 internet domains that were being used by botnet owners.  And it has beefed up the securityof its most recent operating system, Windows 7, making it harder to infect new PCs.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

idea
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 12:49:53 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe MS should put the MRT in as an automatic scan while doing the automatic updates, then automatically remove known bot programs without notifying the user. The user would never know unless he was running one intentionally.




RE: idea
By Spivonious on 10/14/2010 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 5
They've done this since 2006. It shows you how many people aren't running updates.


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: idea
By Mitch101 on 10/14/2010 1:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
You can repair Windows update in Windows 7. Lots of repair options to the OS should these kind of things happen.


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 1:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
You can repair it in Windows any version. What ends up happening is it never gets fixed until you reinstall windows because the error code it gives is the wonderful "I have no ucking clue what is wrong" error.

Seriously, I've spent hours on with Microsoft for customers on this issue (since it is a security issue the support is free), and they can't figure it out either.


RE: idea
By michael67 on 10/16/2010 11:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Most people dont have a clue how to secure there PC i wrote on the WoW guild forum a post how to get your PC reasonable save

quote:
Hi there some of us have ore at least know someone that got there account hacked.

It happened last week to a friend of mine and spend all night fixing her damn computer and implementing new security , so i tough i write up what what i have done to prevent hack's on guild members and missing raids.

1. Most of the best preventive measure is just to prevent hacks,
To make them very hard and 90% of them impossible , here is a excellent link how to do that, its the same way company's secure there networks.
(do it only works in the non home versions of windows XP/Vista/7 and i would recommend upgrading to a other version)
http://www.mechbgon.com/srp/
Its probably for some a bid hard to follow, and if you don't know how, ask someone to help you, but i would really recommend doing this.

ps. Also do not turn of UAC in win Vista/7 and don't blindly click yes when it pop's up (and yes i know its a pain, but so is getting hacked)

2. Get a GOOD anti virus program !!!
AVG free only is not enough neither is Norton junkware

G-Data total care is a good program i can recommend, as it always ranks top in anti virus test's and is not to expensive specially if you take the 3PCs option
http://www.gdata-software.com

If you are a cheap ass and don't wane spend 40 bugs a year get AVG free but then point 3 is not only highly recommend but a must, preferably run A-squared every time before you start up wow

3. No Anti virus software (AV) is perfect,
Get extra FREE versions of AV and do at least once a week a manual scan ore after bin browsing porn ore have installed cracked programs.
Also because these are all manual scan programs they wont slow you computer during gaming.

These are the minimum i would install:
Malwarebytes http://www.malwarebytes.org/
a-squared Free http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/eek/.
Spybot search and destroy http://www.safer-networking.org/index2.html
Also run the Immunize option it prevents files to be changed whit out you knowing it

A online virus scan is also something i would recommend once in a wile, House-call, ESET, Panda are good, kaspersky is offline making a new scanner but if back is properly one of the best.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=online+virus+...

4. A small but very nice program is, Secunia Personal Software Inspector (PSI)
Its a small program that checks version Nr of you programs and compare's it whit a list online for programs whit security updates, its very small and uses almost no memory and resources.
Its like windows update for the rest of your programs
http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal...
The new Beta 2.0 dose now all update's automatically ware possible http://secunia.com/PSI2SetupBeta.exe

5. Authenticator: Get one .

This all may seem to some of you over the top, but on the other hand getting hacked is no fun eider, specially for people whit access to the guild bank, as it is a account hackers dream.

And doing these manual scans is not that hard just start one when your getting food taking a dump getting to sleep ore taking a bad because you really stink ore so, and your PC is doing noting anyway, security its just a mind set, and a fact of live we have to live whit, ore get hacked ;-)

Hope this will help some people getting there security up to date.


After this post a lot less people got hacked


RE: idea
By leexgx on 10/17/2010 9:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
the RSA key {wow Authenticator}(one off fee i think for p&p and the device) or an Google phone with the WOW Authenticator maker fpr android (Free i think)


RE: idea
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 1:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
someone did not sense the sarcasm...


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 1:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
IF the article is correct AND the tool does NOT run when it is installed, AND it does NOT say you have to run it manually to detect junk, then the tool is a FAILURE.

Seriously, it doesn't seem like it ever runs through and does a scan when it installs on an update, so there may be truth to this.


RE: idea
By dgingeri on 10/14/2010 1:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
I do remember with some previous Windows XP machines (I'm a professional corporate support tech, so I see a lot of machines with various problems) that the MRT did automatically remove some things and put entries in the event log about them.

In one particular case, I had a laptop user who was away from the office most of the time. (He lived in Minnesota and the office was in Denver.) He came in complaining about slowness and popups during a convention. He didn't need his laptop for the day, so he wanted me to clean it up. I went through and ran spybot and AV scans first. Those removed several things, but the slowness didn't go away. I then found that automatic updates hadn't run for several months, so I installed the updates. The slowness disappeared, so I looked in the event log. it listed that it had removed 3 things that the spybot and AV scans had missed, but it never popped up anything to tell me that.

So, the tool at least used to automatically remove some things without notice. I never knew there was a way to run it manually until today.


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: idea
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
see, in my experiance it's the other way around. personally though i use microsoft security essentials. best there is as far as i can tell.


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: idea
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 4:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
lol the rate down is probably due to your reference to spybot as useless. spybot may not be the end-all be-all it used to be back in the day but useless is a bit of a stretch. honestly i've seen it be fairly effective with detection and removal.


RE: idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: idea
By dark matter on 10/15/2010 2:53:09 AM , Rating: 4
Don't you just love it when people have to resort to calling other people "losers" in their debates. I always find it gives the poster that air of credibility they wouldn't normally get if they merely presented a reasoned and referenced argument.


RE: idea
By 0ldman on 10/15/2010 6:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
If you rely on one antispyware application then you are still infected.

It is that simple.

Nothing out there finds everything.

These little spyware kiddies just keep pooping new bugs and the companies out there trying to get rid of them just can't keep up. Spybot finds some, MalwareBlaster finds some, SuperAntispyware, Trendmicro, MS, AVG, Sophos, etc...

Norton and McAfee seem to be pretty good at separating people from their money, but not much more.

There really isn't a light duty antivirus program anymore and I haven't found one that catches everything yet.


RE: idea
By chick0n on 10/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: idea
By dark matter on 10/15/2010 2:54:47 AM , Rating: 3
With your attitude you wouldn't even cut the grade flipping burgers.


RE: idea
By Iketh on 10/18/2010 2:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
the reason these windows add-ons run in the background and dont notify you of anything is to prevent MS from being sued again for monopolization, as they did with Internet Explorer

if Defender and Malicious Software Removal were "up front and personal" with the end-user, MS would be right back in court


RE: idea
By MrTeal on 10/14/2010 1:50:03 PM , Rating: 5
I'm just waiting for the EU lawsuit, billion dollar fine and inevitable ballot box where you have to choose which malware removal tool you want to install when you first load windows.


The Windows car and the Mac car
By Tony Swash on 10/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Raraniel on 10/15/2010 8:54:18 AM , Rating: 3
An interesting metaphor, since in reality Macs are the ones with a reputation for needing a fire extinguisher :D

gizmodo.com/5524473/core-i7-macbook-pro-could-mak e-water-boil


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Tony Swash on 10/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By B3an on 10/15/2010 6:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
And you think that if OSX was as popular as Windows it would be any more safe? or even as safe? When it's been proven it's less secure, in many ways. Then look at how long it takes Apple to update there secure flaws. Occasionally it's taken them up to a YEAR to fix "critical" flaws.

I've not used AV or anything else on Vista or Win7, but will download and run scans every few months to see if it has anything - never does. They are very secured OS's, if you're not a tool you wont get infected.

Because the main cause of people getting infected in some way is there own stupidity.
A user goes to a site and gets... "WARNING! : YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED. CLICK HERE TO RUN A FREE VIRUS SCAN" ... then the fool does that and downloads and installs some malware.

This comment is wasted on you though Tony, it's clear you work for Apple or have sharer in the company. Unless you really are as stupid as the comments you post.


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 10:35:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
one in four Windows cars burst into flames

Oh, and Macs are completely infallible... i assure you they are not. everything from yellow screens to clunky interfaces, to overheating, to their mobile devices needing band aids just to get signal... yea... you're driving serenely right into a fire pit. meanwhile my mobile device works as intended, needs nothing extra to get signal, does everything yours does without the need for jail breaking and requires no additional software to make me happy. best of all, no itunes... i don't have to worry about plugging my phone into different computers that it's not "synced" with, in fact i can sync my phone with several different systems at the same time!

my windows machine is a god like powerhouse with an insane amount of security but you'd never know it using the thing because it's all transparent. I don't worry about viruses and i download all the time, i don't worry about malware/spyware or many other things most anti windows people preach about. I have complete compatibility with every windows game and software item i can thing of from as far back as the days of windows 95 and i can you any new pieces of software/hardware out (for the most part ~98%).

i don't mind mac but i'm left wondering why it is that you care so much? i mean seriously, it's the mac users that are always walking around talking about how bad my $1500 machine is because it's a pc. i don't particularly care man, a computer's a computer. macs are alright at what they do but they are not, in any way, better than my windows machines. not in software, not in hardware, not in security, not in experience. they have NO advantage what-so-ever.... you name me ONE advantage that is logical and real and i'll agree but in all the years of computer experience i have and all the years of people shoving mac down my throat i've never ever heard one. there are things that are nice but not better. in fact the only one i can think of that comes even close i thought of myself!

in the words of Franklin. "those who would trade their liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" mac should change it's slogan from "think different" to "think sacrifice" because that's what you're doing when you buy mac, sacrificing choice and functionality for a plastic candy coated bubble of an environment in which you can do what steve jobs says you can do and that's about the extent of it.... pwn3d!


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Raraniel on 10/15/2010 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 3
I am convinced that if you put a Mac into my mother's hands, she would find a way to infect it with spyware. She wouldn't stop there, she'd find a way to infect it with spyware designed for a Windows machine.


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 3:06:21 PM , Rating: 3
lol... you know why you don't see as many infections on macs? because programs like "limewire" and "bearshare" aren't usually mac complaint...

every computer i come across that is highly infected typically have one or more of these types of programs on them.

P2P is like and orgy, feels pretty great while your doing it... untill you realize one guy has AIDS.


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Tony Swash on 10/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 3:18:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Macs are less fallible than Windows PCs


no... they aren't. i work with lots of macs every day and believe me they have JUST as many if not MORE issues than windows pcs. Maybe not the same issues but they certainly have their moments just the same.

quote:
"god like"

my pc is "god like" :-)
in all reality it's a hell of a good system that spent lots of money and time on customizing (both hardware and software wise) it runs perfectly fine all the time with no security issues or crashes of any kind. though i don't believe it infallible i do think it's about as rock solid as most computers come.

quote:
I care because it pains me to see so many people trapped in the tortured madhouse that is Windows computing.

this is why i don't like you... you remind me of a bible thumper... always shoving your beliefs and opinions down other peoples throats. if people are happy with their windows systems they why do you just "have" to try and change their opinions? why cant you just say "i think it's great that you're happy with your system" and go use your mac in peace?

quote:
Any system that requires the following to work safely

windows systems don't require this to work safely, this is the equivalent of putting on a biohazard suit. do you use a biohazard suit to walk down the street. This is the kind of thing a tech would do because he knows he's getting into something dangerous. granted you should learn about security and know how to protect yourself no matter what kind of system you're on.

quote:
I repeat - Windows is the platform getting infected all the time - why do you put up with it?

because i use my computer for more than just surfing the web and playing with art programs....


RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Tony Swash on 10/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: The Windows car and the Mac car
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 9:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
The TRUTH of the matter is as follows:
I never once said windows was perfect, flawless, or the only choice for any serious computer user. You assume because i defend windows so readily that i'm so "windows fan" without ever considering the fact that i might actually be writing this from a mac running osx 10.6.

You speak as though i haven't considered the alternative when the truth of the matter is that i'm not only a master within windows but i'm also a highly skilled mac, linux, and unix administrator/user. I use all of these operating systems on a very regular basis and know the pros and cons by heart. I have worked with mac osx since 10.0 and i even have an old emulated 7.0 system laying around. i have also worked with the following alternative operating systems: Debian, mint, ubuntu, fadora, redhat enterprise linux, knoppix, mandriva/mandrake, older suse, solaris 10, bsd. i administrate a windows server 2003, and windows server 2008 systems.

you say that windows security is lacking, well i never said that it was perfect but i will say that in the hands of someone who is a cut above brain-dead and doesn't do dumb things on the net, windows security works just fine.

you said that mac osx security is more elegant, my rebuttal is that the keychain system sucks and breaks so often it requires built in tools to fix it on a regular basis. you don't know how many times i have to fix someone’s security keychain after they reset their password. Every single time....

the uac prompts on a windows box are NO different then the system password prompts on any linux/mac computer. mac uses the bsd codebase which is similar in regard to any other linux system really and so it works roughly the same way. you have a root directory and a home directory and all users can only write to their home directory. only root or a user with sudo (yes this works on a mac) privileges can access the root file system. UAC works EXACTALLY the same way, it simply prevents idiots from writing to the system files without elevation. everyone who switched to a mac or linux system because they were annoyed by uac IS a moron!

you want me to be honest an honorable and i think i have been. mac is not a bad system for what it is good at. it's alright and i don't have any malice toward the computer itself i just feel a bit confined in the environment because i prefer open systems that allow me to customize them a bit more. simply put, all systems have their strengths and weaknesses and to simply say one is crap and has no point is foolish. windows is a great os, and so is mac, and so is linux. they serve different markets and have different purposes. anyone who things that they should cross each others lines as they are now is crazy. mac is great at art and design but when it comes to system customization and administration or working in a large scale corporate network... it's a bit... lacking. windows is nice for general users who want to do a lot of different things with their pc's, they are more customizable than macs are and can offer a larger selection of software. they are also better for integration with many different types of devices. linux is the ultimate for customization and administration and is also by far the most secure. linux is great for someone who wants to do a little work setting the system up and once they have it the way the want... it will never break. mac, alright out of the box, good at what it does. windows, mildly lacking out of the box but with a little customization and understanding of how it works it's an excellent platform and is unrivaled in the business world. linux, hard as hell out of the box (a lot distros, ie. Ubutnu/mint, are fixing this) but once you get it set up you can't break it. also it's the best if you want a hard core secure system.

i see computers for what they are. technology is my whole life. believe me, there's not much i don't know when it comes to technology.

well it's been fun but it might be time to move on to a new article now :-)


that's nice, but....
By inperfectdarkness on 10/14/2010 12:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
i had to reload windows for a different reason. windows doesn't like several dozen games and numerous support programs being loaded. no need for registry cleaning...my butt.




RE: that's nice, but....
By Mitch101 on 10/14/2010 1:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
What were you running I only found one ancient game wouldn't work until I told the shortcut to run in XP mode.

Other than that turning off the auto changing wallpaper cleared up the colors changing old 256 color games.

Basically Ive gone back to games I played on a 486 25mhz machine that still play fine in Windows 7.


RE: that's nice, but....
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 3
There is only one game that i can't get to work on windows 7 x64 and that's civiliztion 3 call to power. (if anyone has any tips i'd love to hear them). my attempts did not kill my computer, nor did they cause any sort of crashes. the game just won't play.

i've never reinstalled windows 7 on my main computer. loaded it once and have been good to go from that point on.


RE: that's nice, but....
By Mitch101 on 10/14/2010 3:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
Found this thread. Few more suggestions in the thread but its working for them on Win 7 x64. (Step 5 sounds promising)
(Link wont post)

Anyway - the fix:
1.) Don't use the autorun when the CD gets inserted.
2.) Open windows explorer and use that to view the CD contents.
3.) Right-click on "setup.exe", and choose "properties".
4.) On the "compatability" tab, check the option to run in WIndows XP compatability mode.
5.) Also check the "run as administrator" option.
5.) Close the properties window.
6.) Double-click on the setup.exe icon - it should now install properly.

NOte: If you already installed and it didn't work, then the first time you run setup like this, it will actually uninstall the game, and you need to run it a gain to install.

Note 2: You should also do the same steps for any patches you install (compatability mode, run as administrator).


RE: that's nice, but....
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 3:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you very much, i'll see if that works... i'm pretty sure the steps i followed were similar and it didn't work entirely but i'll give it another go. i used to love that game and would like to play it again :-). civ 5 was alright but the tech tree in 5 can't touch CTP. underwater cities and space colonies own! :D


RE: that's nice, but....
By raumkrieger on 10/14/2010 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
I've done everything I can and I've still never managed to get Sim City 4 running on Win7. I was saddened to hear that neither Maxis nor Microsoft is even thinking about any sort of compatibility patch, and that a real Sim City 5 is nowhere to be found.


RE: that's nice, but....
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'll look into it for you and see if i can get it working.


another idea
By Irish Patient on 10/14/2010 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft could make an image for a repair disk available via its web site. The idea would be to run the current Windows environment from the optical drive, with a full GUI, access to the internet, etc.

You could do that with the OS 7 disk that came with a Mac I bought in 1995.

An ordinary user could then download and run the latest MRT without having to learn new skills and without any malicious files loading from the hard drive. Or, the ordinary user could run an online malware scan from a third party site like F-Secure.

There could also be a tool to compare a hash of the operating system's files on the hard drive against the most current version online, with automatic replacement of all corrupted or outdated files.

I realize that I can do most of this with a BartPE disk, but most users don't have the ability to make a BartPE disk, and most of the rest (myself included) don't bother until it's too late.




RE: another idea
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 1:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft could make an image for a repair disk available via its web site. The idea would be to run the current Windows environment from the optical drive, with a full GUI, access to the internet, etc.


"But, that is like giving away a copy of windows for free! We can't do that!"

Nowadays they did make the PE more available, but it isn't as useful as the Linux versions.


RE: another idea
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
lol, you forget about the windows compatability virtual machine that comes with windows 7. That's like giving a copy away free and they do it just fine :)

seriously thought making a limited bootable environment you could use to fix and infected machine isn't a bad idea.


Pathetic
By mindless1 on 10/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Pathetic
By MindParadox on 10/15/2010 1:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
well, when you can write a 100% flawless program of any kind to run on literally billions of possible combinations of hardware and software(im ONLY taking into consideration the latest generation of both by the way) and you arent gonna charge 20 thousand bucks per line of code(thats what NASA programmers get because their work HAS to be flawless and bugless) then please, by all means, make fun of MS for having bugs/security flaws

until then, think about this, your beloved apple OSx has more security flaws than windows 95 did, according to the results of the latest blackhat security con(ya know, the conference where they hack into various machines running the latest security as a contest to see who wins which system? yeah, apple was first to be cracked every single time)


RE: Pathetic
By mindless1 on 10/16/2010 12:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I did program and did write 100% secure programs. The difference? I was not so irresponsible to not only exceed my ability to program securely, but also to market it as MORE secure.

That is fraud.


By Spacecomber on 10/14/2010 12:57:53 PM , Rating: 3
For most users, there is no need to go to the MS website and run the Windows Malicious Malware Removal Tool from there. Periodically, MS will include it with their windows updates, and if you have your computer set to download and run these updates, this will take care of it. (My computer just ran the October version of this, yesterday, when it and several other security updates were installed.)




A business decision...
By i1100 on 10/14/2010 2:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
As malware and viruses are almost exclusively crafted from holes in security, keeping current with updates is usually the best way to stay moderately safe. For the huddled masses that have a computer without actually knowing much about how to do maintenance, there is little that you can do but expect them to have automatic updating turned on (usually a default). However, the one caveat is that Microsoft uses automatic updates to check for license validity. This functionality usually results in automatic updates being turned off for those who have non-genuine copies of Windows. While it’s noble to assume that everyone is using a genuine copy, there is still a large amount that are not (some of which may not even know). I would assume that many even would rather save the money that a genuine license would cost and risk their own security. For Microsoft, it is a business decision. They could remove WGA and other license checks from Windows / Microsoft update, most likely resulting in a sizable increase in update subscribers (limiting botnets). However, this move would make them appear “soft” on piracy and would upset the bottom-line focused corporate types. It is a good will vs. almighty dollar struggle, and I know who will win.




How about education and guidance?
By stmok on 10/14/2010 5:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
I combine things in the following way under Windows XP/Vista/7...
=> MSE + Limited/Standard User + SRP or Applocker or Parental Controls + EMET 2.0

(1) MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials)
=> Scans files locally.
=> Might want to scan files manually via http://www.virustotal.com/ instead. (As that uses multiple AV engines...But has a 20MB file size limit.)

(2) Limited or Standard User
=> Can't write into Windows + Program Files directories unless you provide Administrator password.
=> Make sure you password the default Administrator level account!
=> Greatly reduce malware that needs Administrator privileges.

(3) SRP or Applocker or Parental Controls
=> SRP = Software Restriction Policy
=> These three allow one to create a whitelist for the Limited or Standard User.
=> Whitelist = "deny everything by default, except the legit apps I allow!"
=> Combined with (2) causes a Catch-22 situation for malware! (Can't run! Can't infect!)
=> Special note! Parental Controls is a lite version of SRP. It won't help with DLL injection-type malware!
=> You may want to use this as an alternative to Parental Controls: http://blog.didierstevens.com/programs/ariad/

(4) EMET 2.0
=> EMET = Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit
=> "Hardens" apps like Adobe Reader or web-side apps like IE, Firefox, etc.
=> Get it here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/e...0-362559fd2...
=> Requires .Net 2.0 framework (You can install .Net 3.5 framework instead.)

Of course, one still needs to hammer in on the issue of getting your software from legit sources (not hacked/cracked from P2P, Warez, Usenet, etc) and ignoring everything else. As well as keeping the system up-to-date. (Subscribe to MS's Security Bulletin mailinglist.)

Anyway, that's how I "secure" various Windows desktop systems I'm responsible for. The good news is that all the above are free! :) (I use a mixed Windows/Linux environment. Linux for servers, network security via PacketFence, and specific workstations roles.)

Side note:
MSE's licensing conditions allow for one to use it for small businesses of up to 10 devices. (Alongside "Home Use").




Wow! Glad I use a mac
By Tony Swash on 10/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow! Glad I use a mac
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
because i do more with my computer than play with art programs and surf the web....


The bots among us...
By jahwarrior on 10/14/10, Rating: 0
Nay
By littvay on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nay
By gamerk2 on 10/14/2010 1:00:33 PM , Rating: 3
And...Mac's are much more vunerable to such attacks, due to not having modern security measures built into the OS.


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nay
By kylebilenki on 10/14/2010 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not a Mac advocate, but apparently all the safeguards in Windows Vista and 7 couldn't stop this from remote code execution: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin... Oh, and btw, this is what hacked Google in China. Microsoft knew of the vulnerability months earlier but did not release the patch until Google went public with the attack. So much for Microsoft security. Nothing's changed.


Mac advocate or not, the bulletin you linked has nothing to do with the Windows Operating System. It's for Internet Explorer. Those are completely separate software entities and you can use one to infer that the other is insecure.

It would be like myself (or another poster) linking a known defect with Safari web browser and claiming that Mac OS X is insecure. That is simply not the case, Safari has a problem, not Mac OS X.


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nay
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
IE has not been truly built into windows explorer since IE6.

They are separate entities, although its a bit more complicated than that. I think there is a core package that must be installed whether you are using IE or not.

But its not like it used to be, built directly into Windows Explorer.

P.S Where did you see they withheld anything? MS releases security patches all the time(patch Tuesday for non critical, and a critical patch if required), why would this be a PR nightmare over other IE flaws that have been patched?


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IE has not been truly built into windows explorer since IE6.


quote:
But its not like it used to be, built directly into Windows Explorer.


Where did I say it was? I said it has new safeguards ONLY available in Vista/Win7.

quote:
P.S Where did you see they withheld anything? MS releases security patches all the time(patch Tuesday for non critical, and a critical patch if required), why would this be a PR nightmare over other IE flaws that have been patched?


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/microsoft-knew-...

From the article:

quote:
The vulnerability used in the attacks (CVE-2010-0249) was privately reported to Microsoft last August by Meron Sellen, a white-hat hacker at BugSec, an Israeli security research company. Microsoft program manager Jerry Bryant said the company confirmed the severity of the flaw in September and planned to ship a fix in a cumulative IE update next month.


RE: Nay
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 1:54:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh, and btw, this is what hacked Google in China. Microsoft knew of the vulnerability months earlier but did not release the patch until Google went public with the attack.
It was an IE6 exploit on an unpatched machine.. which was being used in a production environment.

The fault lies 100%^100 on Google.

Anyone who knows anything about security knows that MS is more active than pretty much anyone. Security through obscurity is reality, and MS is targeted because of its large share. You are kidding yourself if you think other OS markers have a bigger focus on security than MS. If all the MS virus/malware creates started targeting OSX for example, they would have a field day. This is well known among the security community.


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 2:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
Bud, in case you can't read, the patch for this exploit was released AFTER Google went public.

You can't patch an exploit without, wait for it, the patch.

And the exploit affects IE 7 and 8 on XP-Win7.

Seriously, can you read? Do I need to post Microsoft's own bulletin again?


RE: Nay
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
yes the exploit affects ie 6-8 on winxp - win7 but that's only if you don't have DEP enabled (i think it was) and that's enabled by defualt on ie8. People with the newest browser would have been somewhat safe. Not trying to defend ms here but i think you're over-reacting a bit here. nobody's perfect and exploits will happen on the worlds most used platform.

besides you don't know why they took so long to patch it, perhpas it was just difficult to patch without breaking something else. they obvioulsy didn't want to announce the bug to the world if it remained unpatched for whatever reason.

I mean, it's not like it was hundreds of thousands of citizens machines that got hit, it was google (who should have known better than to use an outdated browser in the first place). I think people give ms much more crap then they deserve. linux distros are really nice, they are not a viable alternative to windows in the main stream. and besides, linux has had it's fair share of security issues which took a little while to get patched just the same, or does someone not remember the faulty key randomization issue they had a few years ago.


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
They list it critical for all OS versions except for Server 2003.

And I understand they have to test patches, but Sept went by, then Nov, then Dec, then Jan, then oh wait, I guess we should release the patch now.


RE: Nay
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
testing is one thing, but what i'm referring to is patch development. it's not as easy as "oh there's a problem, lets poop out a patch. patching can be tricky because usually patching one thing can break others. sometimes figureing out a way to fix a major feature without totally breaking things or crippling your software can be not only tricky and difficult but nearly impossable.

i write code from time to time and patching the hole in the wall applications i write can take me weeks and sometimes months to do. here you have microsoft, a company that writes apps with millions upon millions of lines of code devided in to dev teams that all work different parts of the software and it's a major app that HAS to work in all aspects on TONS of different hardware platforms with many different software configurations. I'm amazed they get most of the patches out in the time frames they do to be perfictally honest!

MS might not be perfect but be reasonable, i think they deserve a little more slack than they get.


RE: Nay
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 4:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it doesn't take 5 months to do that.

And they said it would be released in Sept.

It was a critical vulnerability which caused real harm. They should have released that ASAP, not, "oh let's wait till patch Tue in February."

Remember, they released the patch a few days after Google went public. It was ready to go.

Heck, I turn off automatic updates because I HATE when they decide, "Oh, this update is critical, I'm going to reboot your computer for you while you are not looking."


RE: Nay
By mindless1 on 10/15/2010 3:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
BUT, the fact remains that those who are targeted most have to make more of an effort to claim the same security level, and MS makes billions half-assing it while the rest do it for free and ultimately ARE more secure by the very reason mentioned.

The fault does not rely on Google. WTF is wrong with you? MS releases crap and you think people need to upgrade? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? Nobody should ever upgrade browser versions, there should never be gaping security holes in ANY version. IF a company that rich and lazy can't debug and patch a version, the last thing you should do is buy into (USE) their next, supposedly "fixed" version.

To say it is googles fault is ludicrous, the very last thing they should ever do if the software is insecure is use more software from the same company that refused to secure it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think hard about that, oddly you seem to have a double standard about software that wouldn't apply to any other product mankind has ever known.


RE: Nay
By Chaser on 10/14/2010 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 3
yeah and MACs the most secure computers against all malware! :)


RE: Nay
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 1:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait.... it's coming.


New Concept?
By Beenthere on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: New Concept?
By CK804 on 10/14/2010 1:55:09 PM , Rating: 3
Welcome back, Beenthere! I've missed ya!


RE: New Concept?
By Camikazi on 10/14/2010 4:16:28 PM , Rating: 1
Name one program that has NEVER had bugs or problems?


RE: New Concept?
By drycrust3 on 10/15/2010 4:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hello World.


RE: New Concept?
By MindParadox on 10/15/2010 1:53:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe Microsucks should actually build a secure, bug free O/S before they sell it to consumers for billions of dollars per year? Then they would have time to address any new security vulnerabilities instead of investing most of their time creating patches for a defective O/S. What a concept that will never happen as long as Microsucks can sell defective goods for BILLIONS annually.


like i said in a previous post, if you are willing to pay on average 20k per line of code for bug free software, then you go right ahead, personally, thats a bit out of my budget for an operating system

(note, to be completely bug free the code has to be written for an extremely specific set of hardware, IE, you have the exact serial/bin/factory numbers as well as lot numbers for each and every part, and you know that as soon as that code is started you can never upgrade your hardware on that system again without basically completely rewriting the entire OS/software package to compensate for the new hardware)

NASA does this, so do companies running the bigger supercomputers, airplane software packages, things like that

just in case yer math fails you, that would be BILLIONS for an operating system


Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Ahnilated on 10/14/10, Rating: -1
By Chaser on 10/14/2010 1:22:38 PM , Rating: 4
Oh yeah those are so easy to setup, install, run and maintain. And they do so much more than Windows.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
yea, that may be so... but i have had my system destroied and had to reload because i was cocky enough to try and run updates. ever replaced your kernel and not installed/reompiled with new headers? ohhh ever load debian, etc on a machine that needs special drivers?? oh how fun that is. Linux is great but it's no replacement for windows because it's not refined enough. it's still to cryptic and relying on repositories for all your installs kind of sucks. make is no competitor to the windows installer. there is no real alternative to office (there are some minor solutions, open office, etc., but they aren't nearly as good).


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 1:36:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ever replaced your kernel and not installed/reompiled with new headers?


No, because it comes precompiled for most distros for the normal users and doesn't mess up the system.

quote:
ohhh ever load debian, etc on a machine that needs special drivers??


Don't use it so can't say. But I'll bet you that the latest version of SuSE has more drivers than Win7 ever has or will.

quote:
it's still to cryptic and relying on repositories for all your installs kind of sucks.


So having a central and easy way to install software is harder than going to each web site and downloading each piece manually?

quote:
make is no competitor to the windows installer.


Guess who had it first?

quote:
there is no real alternative to office (there are some minor solutions, open office, etc., but they aren't nearly as good).


True.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it comes precompiled

i'm refering to a kernel update just so you know, and on the distros i use that usually entails recompiling it so you can take advange of your video drives and have your system in a resolution above 1024X768... among other things.

quote:
latest version of SuSE</quote
the last version of suse i tried was a long time ago and then it was pretty darn unstable though my laptop crapped out about two years later so...

quote:
So having a central and easy way to install software is harder

it's not harder i just wish there were an easier way to install software that wasn't in the repositories.

quote:
there is no real alternative to office

I'm glad you agree with this, i can see you obviously know what you're talking about and a appreciate your sensibility. I hate when people tell me open office is just as good as ms office.

Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of linux, specifically debain and lately mint (debian + newer packages and no limitations regarding truely free software, ie. they are afraid of trademarks the way debain seems to be)


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
There is hardly a need for a casual user to update the kernel aside from updating to a major release. So that is not really an issue..


By Luticus on 10/14/2010 3:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
true but i've seen updates to things like xorg, xserver, and even just kde in genreal break a lot of things. probably doesn't help that i often instal things before they are out of testing though :-), though i've seen installs of xorg and xserver both require a lot of work and break things majorly if done wrong. one of the biggest problems i have with linux is that there's no way to roll back updates and things that you do to it.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm glad you agree with this, i can see you obviously know what you're talking about and a appreciate your sensibility. I hate when people tell me open office is just as good as ms office. Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of linux, specifically debain and lately mint (debian + newer packages and no limitations regarding truely free software, ie. they are afraid of trademarks the way debain seems to be)


True, Linux isn't perfect. The main selling point for me is being able to reinstall every thing without losing preferences, not having to worry about formatting since the home partition is separate, besides being "free" and free.

Win7 is good too, but unless I am playing SC2, I personally don't need Windows.

And even if I were to use only Windows most if not all the OSS software I use is available for it too. It just works better or is better integrated in Linux.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair, having a home partition is no different that partitioning your drive. Is it transparent to the user in Windows? No.. but the effect is the same.

Backing up config is nice, but I just plain don't do it unless I'm installing the same version. I've had countless amount of trouble restoring profiles to a newer version of a distro.(gonna assume you meant backing up your home folder and package selections)


By Luticus on 10/14/2010 3:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
yea i agree here, though on debain when i went from lenny to the testing version (squeeze) it was a pretty smoothe process (when it worked, now something seems to be broken and every time i try linux won't boot to gui anymore).

i tend to try things out on my vpc first before running the update on my lappy this way i can effectively roll back if it breaks something.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well to be fair, having a home partition is no different that partitioning your drive. Is it transparent to the user in Windows? No.. but the effect is the same.


No it isn't, because your user folder ALWAYS is on the same drive as the OS with Windows. It's convenient to use the start menu, and click on your name to access all your files, docs, etc. But you can't use those built in locations if you put all your stuff on a different HDD.

With Linux, /home can be located on any partition or drive. That way, / can be on a SSD and your data and swap (I only need swap to hibernate) on a normal HDD.

Format "c:" and you lose your home folder. You can get around that by simply deleting everything but the user folder, but that requires booting in with the install disc or a Linux boot disc. After that, manually moving over the user data works.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Luticus on 10/14/2010 4:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your user folder ALWAYS is on the same drive as the OS with Windows


http://www.w7forums.com/change-location-my-documen...

as you can see from the link you can actually change where your user information is stored on a windows system. however this does not move the profile as a whole, just the users file storage (documents, music, etc.) if you want to move the defualt profile location do this:
http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2009/05/ho...
but honestly is it really THAT big a deal. just save things manually to the second drive and you're done. Not that critical in my opinion.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
With Linux it doesn't require any hacking, and I can set it before it gets installed.

Installing Windows, then having to change it later creates a whole mess. Judging by the comments made in the article shows how much of a chore it can be.

I am aware of the environmental variables, but add the feature to the OS during install and at the very least, the control panel, not hacking the registry.


By Luticus on 10/15/2010 11:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
I've got to had it to you that with regards to this feature you're right. it is much easier to plant your home directory on a different partition/hard disk in linux, it's one of the several advantages to going with linux. I think everyone knows linux is a more customizable interface than windows (which is also part of the reason it's more difficult to use for common folk). I was simply stating that you can do that in windows if you want to, not that it was easy.

Persoanlly i believe that linux is great! I'm actually a huge fan of linux! I, however, am also of the opinion that linux is not ready for mass adoption yet and it is not a real comptetitor to windows yet. it's come a long way and it still has a long way to go but i think it certainly has a chance with a lot of the newer distros that are poping up.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 2:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't use it so can't say. But I'll bet you that the latest version of SuSE has more drivers than Win7 ever has or will.
Sorry, but you are wrong. It probably supports more hardware out of the box, and certainly supports more hardware via windows update which only requires a network card to access. It is by far the best OS driver wise ever released, much better than its predecessors that is for sure. Suse and Ubuntu have certainly made great strides in the driver department, but they are nowhere close to Windows 7.
quote:
So having a central and easy way to install software is harder than going to each web site and downloading each piece manually?
Ya, if only that were true. What happens if there is not an app on the pre chosen list of repositories? Manual installation of anything can be a pain in the butt with nix, and adding extra repositories for the average user is not exactly fool proof either. Furthermore there is no guarantee the files in the repo will stay up to day. There have been plenty of times where I have had to add an extra repo because the files on the main repository have not been kept up and I needed the new version.

And lets not get started about dependencies.. Even with a repository manager, you will run into issues eventually =P..


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 2:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but you are wrong. It probably supports more hardware out of the box, and certainly supports more hardware via windows update which only requires a network card to access. It is by far the best OS driver wise ever released, much better than its predecessors that is for sure. Suse and Ubuntu have certainly made great strides in the driver department, but they are nowhere close to Windows 7.


Same with SuSE, you can add more repos to support more hardware like webcams. And SuSE has built in 3D support for most Intel and AMD graphics cards.

quote:
Ya, if only that were true. What happens if there is not an app on the pre chosen list of repositories? Manual installation of anything can be a pain in the butt with nix, and adding extra repositories for the average user is not exactly fool proof either. Furthermore there is no guarantee the files in the repo will stay up to day. There have been plenty of times where I have had to add an extra repo because the files on the main repository have not been kept up and I needed the new version. And lets not get started about dependencies.. Even with a repository manager, you will run into issues eventually =P..


software.opensuse.org

Search and add anything via 1 click. Any repos necessary are added. Packman, VLC, and others are already available built in.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By omnicronx on 10/14/2010 2:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same with SuSE, you can add more repos to support more hardware like webcams. And SuSE has built in 3D support for most Intel and AMD graphics cards.
I don't disagree that Suse does the same thing, I disagree with your statements of it being even close to as comprehensive as Windows 7.

(In fact I would disagree that it had more support than previous Windows OS's, Device manufacturers make drivers for Windows, they generally do not for unix based OS's.)

Windows is much easier to use out of box for much more hardware that any version of nix. That is clearly evident.

Nothing wrong with nix (Have been a long time user myself), but lets not kid ourselves here..


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By sprockkets on 10/14/2010 4:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, either the distro has the driver, or it doesn't. But since it is much more updated than any version of windows, it is better.

Win7 won't support my Dell 700m 855gm Intel video. No driver is made for it. Hacking in the Vista driver fails to work. Dumb, but there it is.

SuSE? Full 3D support out of the box.

Sometimes older hardware gets depreciated while usually Linux keeps it.


By SoCalBoomer on 10/14/2010 6:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that Win7 won't support your old display, but rather that Intel will not write drivers for it. . .

Everyone blames Microsoft for driver support when they don't write drivers, hardware manufacturers do and Intel is notorious for only supporting those chipsets they actually want to support. . .


By CU on 10/14/2010 4:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And SuSE has built in 3D support for most Intel and AMD graphics cards.


Windows has support for all of their cards, not most.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Flunk on 10/14/2010 1:46:50 PM , Rating: 4
There are plenty of Linux viruses too. Your anecdote about not getting viruses for 20 years doesn't hold any water as an argument.

I haven't had any Windows viruses on my systems in 10 years but that doesn't mean that there aren't any Windows viruses. It just means I don't download junk programs and try to run them on my computers.

To be fair I do have a Linux notebook and it hasn't ever had a virus and I find it quite easy to use unless I have a problem and then it gets quite complicated to fix.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By mindless1 on 10/15/2010 3:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it does. This is the stupidity we keep seeing, that people want to argue "it isn't perfect either" when it does not matter if anything is perfect, only that whatever you use, that it is hardened appropriately for the amount it is targeted.

Let's put it another way. Do you put a lock and an armed guard on an outhouse? No, that would be stupid. You guard that which is of value. Unfortunately with Linux you have an outhouse nobody tries to break into but with windows you have what everyone tries to break into and only a sign that reads "buy me I am secure".


By drycrust3 on 10/15/2010 4:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately with Linux you have an outhouse nobody tries to break into


My experiencing with Ubuntu is that I spend most of my time browsing and using the computer productively, and my recollection of Windows was that I constantly had to tinker and tweak and cajole the computer along so I could browse and use the computer. Maybe that lost time and productivity isn't valuable to you, but it is to me.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By rudy on 10/14/2010 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 1
If linux is so much better how come their are millions of infected servers running linux?

I have been doing web work for years and holes in scripts running on linux machines are common place it has happened to me on multiple occasions. The fact is if you are going to exploit an OS you are not going to bother going after linux at the consumer level but at the server level it is a prime and suseptible target. However if you pay close attention to security. You can avoid it, but the same thing is true on windows.

No one builds an entirely secure OS and even if they do the software you run on it is likely to contain flaws.


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By mindless1 on 10/15/2010 3:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try avoiding reality... but it didn't work.

Linux is better because it is not targeted as much and because of the open source that allows people to openly discuss and fix flaws.

How is this not obvious? Wear blinders all the time??

Your web work was piss poor OR you are being deliberately biased if you do not accept that the vast majority of the time it is a windows server compromised... which would be fine considering windows market force, IF it were free too!


RE: Windows, the hole filled waste of an OS.
By Luticus on 10/15/2010 11:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Linux is better because it is not targeted as much
Now you sound like a mac user...

quote:
open source that allows people to openly discuss and fix flaws
and for hackers to easily find them... unfortunately open source works both ways.

Windows machines get compromised because they are often poorly configured. You don't know how many times i've seem complete morons make their domain controller a web server as well, or people install exchange on the primary domain controller, or some other dumb crap. If you want to consolidate servers at least virtualize!

hell at one place i worked the people used their server as a freaking workstation and i can't even count the number of viruses infecting their system!

Sad... So sad...

So yes, windows machines are in fact infected more than linux machines, but traditionally if you're smart enough to deploy and manage a linux server then you're smart enough to not get your system infected! on the other hand any idiot can get a windows server up and running, might not be able to administrate it or install things on it or even secure it but they can get it up and running and that's all it takes really.


By mindless1 on 10/16/2010 2:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
How about the simple truth instead of trying to pretend forethought cancels reality?

The reality is, windows is a target. Far far moreso than any other possible choice. Period. Choose to be a target and then you are left with no consolation except hoping your target isn't ever targeted.

Windows is like having a car with the key left in the ignition and the automaker claiming that is more secure than if you only had push button start.

The facts are out there. The most insecure OS on earth is still inherently more secure than windows just because it isn't windows... Those who don't have a target painted on their backs, need not run from fire when others do.


By priusone on 10/14/2010 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
My redneck Aunt and Uncle, who will spend $1000 for a pink pig looking BBQ, but refuse to pay $369 for a bottom of the line new PC are surely candidates for a used computer running linux, right?

I spent $25 on an eight year old system for them, found a version of linux that would be user friendly for them, installed it and gave it to them.

Since then, I have installed Windows XP because they couldn't download the advertised poker games or the deer hunter games, and so on. I brought by a hackintosh, but had the same problem. After my (insert retartedly large number) reinstallation of XP, I finally ghosted the machine and showed my nephew how to use the ghost CD's.

So, is Microsoft to blame? I'm sure you would say yes, but in reality, Microsoft does a good job at trying to make a semi userfirnedly OS that is hacker unfriendly. Now, how many people out there have no clue how to do anything other than www.farcebook.com and download the occasional spyware? Lots.


By themaster08 on 10/15/2010 1:37:35 AM , Rating: 1
How many updates has your Linux distro had to endure today?


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki