Thread: Windows virus?

While it may be good in theory to demand certification, I don't know if it holds in reality.
How much does it cost to have such checks? Lots of money.
Does that means that open source applications and those from individual developers are poor quality just because they aren't certified? I think not. They would, nevertheless, get the benefit of doubt by many and would probably be avoided in the end.

No, what they should focus on is building good free tools to help programs in quality testing and make a stable operating system which will not crumble from poorly written software/drivers.
Those are my thoughts.
I would love to see prompts that asks for suspicious behavior from programs, on the note that I can allow permanently, of course. If a program tries to delete files, I want to know WHAT files.

Although, I could see certification programs that are FREE to go a long way, provided they are fast, done by many and under the same rules. They could even have a certification-in-progress to ensure or calm users that the program is indeed going through certification but has not yet received it, since it would a way against fears when they see a program is not certificated (one might thing they would skip certification otherwise).

Originally Posted by Elysia

I would love to see prompts that asks for suspicious behavior from programs, on the note that I can allow permanently, of course. If a program tries to delete files, I want to know WHAT files.

This type of functionality is again better left for 3rd party tools. Certain personal firewalls, for instance, already offer system level protection on an application, and even file, basis that will handle that and many other issues, if the user so wishes. At the cost of a download.

Meanwhile, remember that wish when you realize temporary files are created and destroyed on windows all the time.

What I want is an operating system that does little for me and asks me to do much for it. Linux and Windows XP offer that type of balance. Each in their own way (although my fav i still Windows 2000). There's nothing inherently insecure about Windows XP that hasn't been fixed with later service packs. Conversely, there's nothing inherently more secure about Vista that will not be exploited to exhaustion invariably subjugating it to Yet Another Microsoft Operating System.

Buffer overruns and such only offer backdoors when exploited by malicious tools we allowed to creep in our system. That is the line of defense we tend to overlook and then blame it on the operating system alone, forgetting about our share of responsibility. I haven't be caught in a buffer overrun exploit for maybe a decade. And behold, I can sometimes skip 6 months without making a windows update.

These malicious tools meanwhile are acquired from many sources, the most common ones being warez and pornographic websites... and again we blame it on the operating system when we don't even try and observe rudimentary internet safety pratices.

Windows is as secure as Linux from a home computer point of view. That is by far not the reason I recently switched to Linux. And we don't need to be told what application deletes what file.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

This type of functionality is again better left for 3rd party tools. Certain personal firewalls, for instance, already offer system level protection on an application, and even file, basis that will handle that and many other issues, if the user so wishes. At the cost of a download.

I know. I have certain such protections installed, actually. I don't really care if it's 3rd part or the OS itself, just that the functionality should be there.

Meanwhile, remember that wish when you realize temporary files are created and destroyed on windows all the time.

So true, but here's why there's need for advanced rules. For example, I can I want to allow creation and deleting of files inside the temporary directories.
But the biggest point is that we should be able to configure it to allow stuff we want and only ask if it's a suspicious ask we have not allowed.
So if I suddenly get a virus of my computer, I instantly get popups that a strange program is doing something.
Otherwise it just runs in the background, watching without interrupting.
That's the kind of security I like.

And behold, I can sometimes skip 6 months without making a windows update.

Me too
I only download service packs!

But all virii exploit a bug in the OS (except social engineering ones). If there are no bugs (or if fixed rapidly enough), there won't need to be anti-viruses. Anti-viruses are like third party Windows bug fixing packs. Looking around the computer world, Windows is the only OS in the whole universe that needs a third party program to keep it safe.

That's not quite fair. If people would spent a fraction of what they spend on *nix security on Windows security, they'd have a pretty stable, pretty good and virus proof operating system. But they don't. The same guy that spent the weekend installing a new *nix system will totally hose his Windows box, because obviously creating a second, non-root user even with GUI assistance is too much of a hassle when running Windows.

Windows is pretty secure. But the security is turned off by default to appeal to the masses. I don't know why anyone running without administrative priviledges would need a virus scanner or other third party software. I do know people who blindly click on stuff and execute it. You could probably send them format.com by email and they'd format their harddisc, just because it seemed to be a good idea. No amount of security will prevent this. Dumb people are dumb people.

The last years have shown a vast amount of virii and worms. And very few were actually worth worrying about. Most of them were simply fishing for the 90% of clueless users out there. Malware is on the rise because dumb people using computers are on the rise. Security in Windows has improved tremendously from '95 to Vista. Average user education has gone down the drain at an even steeper rate. That's the problem and no software will ever fix it, the same way nobody can produce a knife that is both useful and safe enough for idiots to not cut themselves. There is no way this will work.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Hmm. Ubuntu installation takes ~ half an hour on my machine. I spend an additional hour or so installing programs I need. I don't need to consciously do anything to improve security.

But you have paid for this extra security over a Windows system with user friendliness. Just for a second, be my mom. Go to your local library, grab a 7-year-old WeightWatchers CD with a leaflet read so often you are afraid it will turn to dust if you touch it, take the CD, insert it into your drive and have it running in 5 minutes without any knowledge about your computer, sudo, a root password or even the fact that just because it's a "computer CD", it doesn't have to work on every computer/OS.

Yes, the fact that autorun is enabled because she wouldn't know how to start the executable on the CD otherwise and the fact that she is running as administrator because I won't give a three-hour-lecture about running a system with different users are tearing a security hole in the system that's the size of a small moon. But that's the price people pay.

On Windows, especially before Vista, it's practically impossible to use a limited user account (the UNIX way), simply because programs were designed assuming the user has admin priviledge.

That's true. But don't blame the OS. The operating system itself is safe. Applications are crappy. And your desire to run them is greater than your desire for security. Your email client is running arbitrary code and requires admin priviledges ? Well, throw it in the bin and get a better mail client. But people don't want that. Because running OEx is so simple right ?

Windows (NT upwards) wasn't a bad operating system. It was pretty secure. If you used it. If you abused it, you'd experience the same problems you'd have with a *nix system having a totally clueless user running as root all time installing buggy software.

Ok cyberfish. It's pretty obvious you have your mind made up. I just find it ironic that while you lament over windows apparent complexity, many windows users lament over *nix complexity. It's a case to say I've seen it all on what comes to unfounded criticism. Have it your way...

But one word of advise; Admitting your lack of skill with Windows should at least make you ponder the arguments been used here and not summarily dismiss them. Especially when done by people with two decades of experience with Microsoft operating systems.

As for me, I'm going out for an icecream while leaving windows online. Just because I can.

Especially when done by people with two decades of experience with Microsoft operating systems.

Are we really getting that old? My first OS was 2.10 with a copyright of 1980 (79, 80, 81?). You were lucky then if the OS did 'anything' for you except hook interrupt 21h and run your disk drive. Thanks now I feel really old.

Now people are complaining about how much the OS does 'for' you. I'm happy with XP. It's intrusive enough to be safe and secure yet not intrusive enough to be downright annoying.

Here's to hoping they produce a lean and mean version of the next Windows (post-Vista) so I can choose how much bloat I need for my little corner of the world.