has microsoft dug itself into an antivirus hole?

[uberdonkey5]

I was in local computer store and I was shocked to see the amount of antivirus software (and the cost!) for windows.

Due to the way windows allows access to your system (as an intrinsic part of windows operation), and due to the commercial interests of anti-virus software developers, have windows dug themselves into a hole? Effectively they cannot compete, and maybe will never be able to compete with linux on security and virus protection issues.

Do you think this is true? Is this a major way to market ubuntu to a wider audience (though personally I think we should sort out the MAJOR installation issues that still occur with ubuntu and have a much prettier (even windows looking) default appearance (which possibly can be turned off, as an option :D) to attract newbies.

[aysiu]

I don't think this is true at all.

If you install and use SuRun on Windows XP, it's just about as secure as Ubuntu is out of the box (with some minor exceptions).

The minor exceptions I can think of are: File extensions are not shown by default (this also can be changed) Downloaded files do not need to be made executable to execute (for example, you can double-click a .bat file, and it'll run a series of commands). This may be modifiable behavior. I'm not sure if it is. The average Windows user knows less about social engineering than the average Linux user (this can be changed through education).

What you call an intrinsic part of [W]indows operation is really just its default. You can change it to be secure.

[rodriguez24]

I believe Ubuntu 8.04 is very much windows-like. It was one of the reasons I chose Ubuntu. What scares people away the most is that Linux doesn't have MS Office. I know that it has OpenOffice, but try explaining that to people. :P I had to take my laptop to my sister's house to convince her to let me switch her to Ubuntu (Since I provide the tech service anyway). I told her I was no longer going to service Windows. HAHA. But once she saw it and played with it she really didn't have an issue. It typed documents and it loaded firefox. People feel that Linux is for exports. However, if you really think about it, it's very well suited for beginners. Its the more tech-savy people that get in there and start "breaking" things. The beginner can just use Ubuntu right "out of the box" and just go.

[aysiu]

What scares people away the most is that Linux doesn't have MS Office. I know that it has OpenOffice, but try explaining that to people. That hasn't been my experience at all, but if what you're saying is true for your social circle, you're probably best off starting to migrate them to open source Windows software before introducing Linux. Start with OpenOffice, GIMP, Firefox, and Thunderbird for Windows. That'll make the transition to Linux easier.

[uberdonkey5]

I don't think this is true at all.

If you install and use SuRun on Windows XP, it's just about as secure as Ubuntu is out of the box (with some minor exceptions).


Wow, didn't know about this software before. Why don't people use it instead of the cumbersome and expensive antivirus software?

So, effectively, you are saying less posibility of viruses is NOT a reason to swap to linux? (I don't buy the less viruses cos less people use it argument, though it is true, this argument only last while we have a small market share!)

P.S. I also thought that for windows operation it required ports to be open for updates etc and that there was an ability for microsoft (and thus other people) to get information from your computer??

[semitone36]

I would have to say that this could be the fate of all operating systems. While linux doesnt allow access to its files in the same way windows does that doesnt make it impossible for a virus to be coded to attack a Linux comuter. As the number of Linux users grows and news of our OS spreads, the number of viruses that Linux is suceptible to will rise.

[aysiu]

People don't use it because they haven't heard of it. I hadn't even heard of SuRun or SuDown until a few months ago.

So, yes, if fear of viruses is your only reason to switch, then you should stick with Windows, install and use SuRun, and read up on avoiding social engineering attacks.

I love Linux, and I will probably never go back to Windows, but I don't think people should switch from Windows to Linux if the only reason is a fear of viruses.

[aysiu]

I would have to say that this could be the fate of all operating systems. While linux doesnt allow access to its files in the same way windows does that doesnt make it impossible for a virus to be coded to attack a Linux comuter. As the number of Linux users grows and news of our OS spreads, the number of viruses that Linux is suceptible to will rise.
It depends on what you call a "virus."

If you include social engineering-based malware, then I agree with you completely. All you have to do is create a malicious but "cool" .deb file and trick Ubuntu users into double-click-installing it, and their entire system is compromised.

[semitone36]

It depends on what you call a "virus."

If you include social engineering-based malware, then I agree with you completely.

Sorry. That is what I was referring to.

[MickS]

That hasn't been my experience at all, but if what you're saying is true for your social circle, you're probably best off starting to migrate them to open source Windows software before introducing Linux. Start with OpenOffice, GIMP, Firefox, and Thunderbird for Windows. That'll make the transition to Linux easier.

That's the route I took, without realising at the time that I would end up here. I would add Audacity, Foxit and Winamp to your list, not because they are open source or not but to demonstrate that you don't need MS for anything.

Mick

[fiddledd]

Wow, didn't know about this software before. Why don't people use it instead of the cumbersome and expensive antivirus software?


There's no need to pay for any anti-virus or anti-spyware software for Windows'


Anti-Virus:

Clamwin = FOSS
Avast = free
AVG = free

Anti-Spyware:

Spybot = free
Windows Defender = Free (and not as bad as people seem to think)

And there are others.

[sinclair86]

I would just like to put my 2 cent in here (lol).

It depends on what you call a "virus."

Agreed. Not only do AV companies monitor for trojans, virii, malware, etc but there is also API Hooking, DLL Injection, etc. they arent just easy to pick out executable file anymore like they used to be.

The thing is windows has a slightly larger target audience. So you have little kids with the online website games to people like my mom, who whenever something pop up she just click ok or yes, who just use it to browse the internet and get email. They have no idea how to stop from getting virii or about patches etc other than an AV comapny and thats who they are targeting. There are a lot of people out there trust me. lol.

But look at it this way how is someone on a windows box with virus any different from someone on a linux box who got hacked from an ill-managed configuration file? There is no difference they are both compromised. Sure linux doesnt need a AV but it has to watch out for people who have no idea what they are doing.

[aysiu]

Not running as administrator all the time is a big help in terms of cutting down on malware infections.

My worry with the anti* applications is that if they're truly effective, they will also identify too many false positives and generally feed a sense of paranoia and unnecessary anxiety.

I'd trust a clueless user far more with Windows XP and SuRun than with Windows XP as administrator and all the best anti* software installed.

[sinclair86]

My worry with the anti* applications is that if they're truly effective, they will also identify too many false positives and generally feed a sense of paranoia and unnecessary anxiety.

Who do you think has a foot in producing them? what better way to promote your product than by helping create a need for it. It all comes down to money in the end.

[cardinals_fan]

Wow, didn't know about this software before. Why don't people use it instead of the cumbersome and expensive antivirus software?

SuRun and SuDown are not well known, and they don't waste a ton of resources looking busy.

[smoker]

I was in local computer store and I was shocked to see the amount of antivirus software (and the cost!) for windows.

i'm not surprised. if i had such a shop they would be given prominent space and the sales crew would be told to push for a sale on every pc purchase. i certainly wouldn't be recommending better free stuff, :D

[Forbees]

AVG has made AntiVirus for linux

they see the we convert more and more people each year, so when the threashold breaks and virus's pore over to our side, AVG has us convered :-p

[cmat]

If Windows was secure you would see AV companies dropping anti-trust lawsuits on them left and right.

[Betsybuntu]

I see people say that all the time but what arguement would the AV companies possibly have against Microsoft? None, I say. They exist because of security flaws within the OS, they have no inherent right on security holes within Windows. If Windows 7launches absolutely bulletproof there is nothing these people could possibly say or argue for to get any more holes in it.

If MS packaged OneCare with it, this would be something else entirely.

[aysiu]

At this point, it wouldn't matter whether or not Windows became more secure by default. The antivirus and antimalware software companies have already scared people into thinking they all need anti* software installed.

If you don't believe me, check out all the ex-Windows users who post here and don't believe us when we say you don't need antivirus on Ubuntu. The typical responses are "Linux users are complacent" or "I know I don't need it, but I like to run it just in case. Old habits die hard."

They do indeed. People's "need" for antivirus software has very little at this point to do with Windows' default security policies. It's like a placebo.

[fiddledd]

At this point, it wouldn't matter whether or not Windows became more secure by default. The antivirus and antimalware software companies have already scared people into thinking they all need anti* software installed.

If you don't believe me, check out all the ex-Windows users who post here and don't believe us when we say you don't need antivirus on Ubuntu. The typical responses are "Linux users are complacent" or "I know I don't need it, but I like to run it just in case. Old habits die hard."

They do indeed. People's "need" for antivirus software has very little at this point to do with Windows' default security policies. It's like a placebo.

Yeah but it's not just the anti-virus/anti-spyware companies, it's also the media. There are often news items or reminders of hacking, phishing, identity theft. Most people think Virus when they read these stories.

You don't get much chance to forget about it, it's in your face too often. Even Linux has chkrootkit and rkhunter that are used by many, "just to be safe".

Personally I've never had a Virus on Windows, I've always used a LUA, and for the last few months SuRun (which is not for security, but to make my Admin tasks easier). I also use Clamwin to scan once a week or if I download a new file, and Windows Defender that informs me of any attempted system wide changes.

But I still retain a degree of paranoia when it comes to security.

[ronnielsen1]

As the number of Linux users grows and news of our OS spreads, the number of viruses that Linux is suceptible to will rise. __________________

I guess all of those servers running linux aren't a target?

Linux will never have a virus epidemic to the extent that Windows does. It's an entirely different system. I do see where spyware could become an issue as more companies offer proprietary software for linux.

[fiddledd]

I guess all of those servers running linux aren't a target?


While true, most, if not all, of those servers are secured by an IT Pro, which is not the case for the Desktop.

If the day arrives when there are millions of Desktops running Linux it will be an entirely different situation.

As to what will happen, I have no idea.

[cardinals_fan]

I guess all of those servers running linux aren't a target?

Most server admins don't click on banner ads for "Free Popular Screensavers!".

[rodriguez24]

That hasn't been my experience at all, but if what you're saying is true for your social circle, you're probably best off starting to migrate them to open source Windows software before introducing Linux. Start with OpenOffice, GIMP, Firefox, and Thunderbird for Windows. That'll make the transition to Linux easier.

Well as soon as I said they could do a save-as to MS Office they were okay with it. I guess its just fear of change or lack of knowledge.

[zmjjmz]

A lot of you are confused about the difference between a trojan and a virus.
A trojan gets in via a social engineering attack, and all operating systems are vulnerable.
A virus gets in without user authorization or knowledge, and can only do major damage if
a) It's executable (which Windows makes files by default)
b) The user is running as an admin, allowing the virus to make system changes.

Anyways, I believe that the antivirus people have dug themselves into a precarious position. If MS decides to get their act together and pre-installs SuRun (they aren't averse to pre-installing OSS. They're shipping jQuery with the new Windows Server package.) and makes sure users have to make a program executable before executing instructions, the anti-virus companies are screwed because it would block viruses.
Of course, this would also involve MS fixing vulnerabilities in IE, Outlook, and so on.

So it's unlikely, but there is a threat to the AV industry and their moolah.

[Forbees]

it seems alot people also forget that almost all hackers/crackers/virus makers (including trojins and worms) use linux!

so if they try to infect or hack another linux user, how do they know this person is waaaaayyy better than him?

unless you've been monitored for some time so they know your not better

well . . . . either way it will be interesting . . . most hackers etc i know dont mess with linux users out of respect . . but they love to **** with windows users lol

[jrusso2]

There were certain design decisions made with Windows which is the reason it is the only Operating System that is so vulnerable to malware. Where as other operating systems didn't make those compromises which makes infection much more difficult.

I don't agree that if Linux was as popular as Windows it would be just as virus prone. It is vulnerable to trojans and social engineered attacks and other things like buffer over flows however.

[uberdonkey5]

I know I got a bit panicked at work one time because I had been using windows for a couple of years on the computer, with a company fire-wall (through a server), but on a virus scan there were a handful of viruses and trojans detected. I used the computer for financial transactions, so it could have been bad.

I'm not sure if I had a false sense of security then because I thought the firewall would be better, or now, because I don't even check for viruses. One thing with open source at least, is that someone is likely to spot the virus eventually (unlike closed source, which could be implanted for release at a much later date allowing wider distribution).

[Kernel Sanders]

I don't agree with this either. Personally i'm not using Antivirus on Vista, and with UAC particularly, i'm as solid as a rock.

I download clamwin portable now and again and run a scan out of curiosity, and it never finds anything :KS

[SoulRyuu]

On windows xp I ran AVG Anti Virus, Spybot and the Built in Windows Firewall, PC on about 16/17 hours a day, no hack attempts, no viruses. and all those programs are free.

pay anti-virus programs are nothing but gimmicks.

[uberdonkey5]

On windows xp I ran AVG Anti Virus, Spybot and the Built in Windows Firewall, PC on about 16/17 hours a day, no hack attempts, no viruses. and all those programs are free.

pay anti-virus programs are nothing but gimmicks.

+1, but surely these slow your system down considerably?

[cmat]

ESET NOD32 is pretty good from what I've heard from people. Doesn't slow down your PC at all. Also personal firewalls are utterly useless when you have a well configured router. Unless you are scared of being attacked from inside the network.