Zombie PCs and BBC bias

[stwschool]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8032886.stm

Not a single mention of Windows and its role in the problem. It seems a bit advert for anti-malware software, but what about the free alternative? Useless, utterly useless.

[monsterstack]

I agree. But the BBC have done this before (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7932816.stm) [bbc.co.uk]. Then again they do manage to at least mention the word "Windows" in this piece about conficker (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7946574.stm) [bbc.co.uk].

[MikeTheC]

Alright, so how about instead of you folks bitching about this sort of thing, you do what I did and call the authors on their actions? I did that a week or so back with the articles in The Guardian and the Financial Times.

Unless you're willing to roll up your sleeves, I don't want to hear about it. Complaining without taking action is useless and a waste of our time.

[pwnst*r]

i like how you think, sir

[monsterstack]

Alright, so how about instead of you folks bitching about this sort of thing, you do what I did and call the authors on their actions? I did that a week or so back with the articles in The Guardian and the Financial Times.

Unless you're willing to roll up your sleeves, I don't want to hear about it. Complaining without taking action is useless and a waste of our time.

I was going to post and try to defend myself, but you know what? you're absolutely right. Whilst I always make sure I leave a comment on such news places that allow feedback when things like this happen, I've never bothered to actually go and call them up specifically to tell them so.

What responses do you usually get when you call up places like the BBC or the FT?

[MikeTheC]

I was going to post and try to defend myself, but you know what? you're absolutely right. Whilst I always make sure I leave a comment on such news places that allow feedback when things like this happen, I've never bothered to actually go and call them up specifically to tell them so.

What responses do you usually get when you call up places like the BBC or the FT?

Actually, of the two, only Maija Palmer had the courage to respond at all, even though I found it to be lacking.

Here's what I wrote to her:


Hello... Just read your article on the latest botnet in the Financial Times and I am curious: Did you ask any of the people you spoke with about diversification of technological assets, such as *not* running Windows exclusively? As a user of Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux, it is with some befuddlement that I never seem to see mentioned in the press anywhere the truth in such articles, that is (while no OS is perfect) that the only systems affected are Windows-based ones? Thanks!


Here's her response:


The malware was exclusively infecting computers running Windows XP. It is a good point that using different operating systems would give some protection. Although, I suspect, if these other operating systems increased in popularity, they would inreasingly be targeted by hackers.

Take note of how she doesn't respond to my point about asking obvious questions of the people and persons involved?

[monsterstack]

Ah. That seems to be the stock response for apologists on all manner of malware and associated online evils.

cf The Wikipedia talk page for Botnets, where people are arguing about whether or not to include the fact that Botnets are a particularly Windows phenomenon (it isn't included in the article) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Botnet#Rogue_botnets_run_on_Microsoft_OSes) [wikipedia.org]:


What you say is true, but it doesn't necessarily have any significance. If 95% of home PCs run Windows, that's bound to be the natural target of criminal botnets as home PCs are the least defended computers in the world. If 95% ran Mac OS, you'd see a shift to Mac OS-based botnets. The same would be true of Linux or any other OS.

cf This magnificent comment on some AV company's announcement about the looming threat to Linux (http://www.itworld.com/comments/56382) [itworld.com]:


"Part of this is because Linux on the desktop is still a third rate OS due to the ever evolving changes made in every distro. The same phrase I hear all the time is Linux is more secure the Windows. Hate to burst your bubble, but Linux is only more secure because of the lack of use by main stream users, aka average home user. Being open source makes it more vunerable in itself as all a hacker has to do is look through the source code to find vunerablities in the OS. Quit kidding yourselves or being ignorant, the name of the game in hacking has changed. It is no longer about shutting down websites, finding generating key to use pirated software. It is about money and yes Linux and Unix servers are going to be targeted due to this."