Anti-virus software industry

[POWMS]

With the use of MS software products, comes the necessity to buy anti-virus software. Especially for business use, such as where I work, where we are 100% reliant on MS software (unfortunate). Sure, there are free anti-virus versions available, but mostly for lightweight home use.
With the inevitable increase of Unix based OS (Apple and Linux) in the near future, I wonder how the anti-virus companies will adjust, since most of their income must be generated by MS's shortfall in the virus area?
Just thinking aloud.............:-\"

[ade234uk]

I find it absolutely crazy that buying anti virus seems to be the norm. Anti virus seems to be part of the package, a bonus when buying a new machine. "Look they are giving away Nortons Anti Virus, with this new machine. What a great deal."

Fact is, if the OS was not so insecure in the first place you would not need anti virus, but to the average user they don't think of it like this.
To them anti virus, spyware removers are the norm, so companies like Nortons and other others have made a bad thing good and made a lot of money in the process.

[Simon17]

Well there's an M$ conspiracy to keep us buying antivirus software and paying for update subscriptions. M$ codes security holes into their software, the AV companies code viruses to exploit them, they both fill their pockets and the consumer loses.

This is such a sweet deal for them that they will do anything and everything in their power to keep Inherently More Secure OSes out of the market. Not just by spreading FUD and paying shills either.

For example, just look at how M$ killed The Year of the Linux Netbook revolution by reviving Window$ XP and selling it at a fraction of the original price. They can afford to lo$e money on their O$, but Linux couldn't po$$ibly compete with that predatory pricing. Convicted monopoli$t.

[MacJack]

Well there's an M$ conspiracy to keep us buying antivirus software and paying for update subscriptions. M$ codes security holes into their software, the AV companies code viruses to exploit them, they both fill their pockets and the consumer loses.

This is such a sweet deal for them that they will do anything and everything in their power to keep Inherently More Secure OSes out of the market. Not just by spreading FUD and paying shills either.

For example, just look at how M$ killed The Year of the Linux Netbook revolution by reviving Window$ XP and selling it at a fraction of the original price. They can afford to lo$e money on their O$, but Linux couldn't po$$ibly compete with that predatory pricing. Convicted monopoli$t.


The use of $ does nothing for your post.

[tgalati4]

Plu$ one.

[SoFl W]

The use of $ does nothing for your post.

Yes but everyone else does it so it looks K00L! You have to choose which profit making corporation you want to be displeased with.

[PuddingKnife]

$ometime$ I wonder to my$elf if $ome anti-viru$ $oftware companie$ have $ome $ort of black budget $et a$ide to hire viru$ coder$. Meh.. who know$?

[aysiu]

With the use of MS software products, comes the necessity to buy anti-virus software. I think this assumption is flawed.

Here's a good guide for how to secure Windows. Antivirus not required (or recommended even):
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/windowssecurity

[Paqman]

$ometime$ I wonder to my$elf if $ome anti-viru$ $oftware companie$ have $ome $ort of black budget $et a$ide to hire viru$ coder$. Meh.. who know$?

That's actually true. Sort of.

Antivirus companies do employ people to write viruses. The idea is that their tame hackers find the exploits before the bad guys do, and they stay one step ahead of the game.

[Cabs21]

With the inevitable increase of Unix based OS (Apple and Linux) in the near future, I wonder how the anti-virus companies will adjust, since most of their income must be generated by MS's shortfall in the virus area?

I do have to say that if I was writing a malicious software I would want it to be as effective as possible. being as Microsoft covers over 85% of the business and private computer world that is who I would attack. That being said if tomorrow Microsoft shut down and Windows was gone forever and everyone switched to say Ubuntu then the anti-virus companies would do the same thing and write protection for Ubuntu since it would be the attackers main target. Hit the bigger target to get better results. hence why Macs have very few serious viruses since they are a small percent of the market.

[AlphaMack]

Here is the problem with antivirus and anything signature-based: they're reactive solutions. Security means taking a proactive approach and preventing intrusions before they happen. Unfortunately as is the case with Windows and other MS products, there are many security holes and it does not entirely have anything to do with marketshare/popularity.

Beneath the surface, Windows is still designed with single users in mind going back to the days of DOS when there was no networking and data transfers occurred via floppy diskettes. Windows 9x did not have multi-user capability and the NT series (NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista/2008/7) required backwards compatibility.

The biggest problem with Windows is giving users admin access by default. While admin users aren't true root users, it's very trivial to escalate to SYSTEM. It used to be that in order to be "safe," you simply created a LUA. Unfortunately, some software titles still require admin privileges. Moreover, some malware such as the Zeus trojan can run as a limited user.

UAC doesn't solve anything because malware can bypass it. Admin users still have unfettered access to the entire system even with UAC.

With OS X, Linux, the BSDs, etc., you only really have to worry about two things: rootkits and social engineering. You can't really stop the latter but OOTB you're about as secure as you can get.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't be affected by other third party vulnerabilities such as those from Adobe products, but you are far less likely to have your entire system compromised.

Until Microsoft guts Windows in its current form and brings forth a true multi-user system from the ground up, you will never be secure with Windows. Of course for MS to secure their OS means a huge loss of backwards compatibility and their ability to sucker you out of your money through planned obsolescence.

Notice how AV doesn't even fit into all of this. They're rainmakers as far as I'm concerned.