virus questions

[Jim Doggett]

I am on a Mac and have not used a PC in years. Someone said in another thread a while ago that the whole virus thing on PC's is overblown ...

Yes and no. More viruses on PCs is because the evil-doers are going after most computers, which are Windows. Create a Mac virus and it targets 10 or 15 percent of computers.

But with any computer, being careful only works to a degree. Viruses are clever and can frequently get past even the most-careful.

So get a good virus protection program. The best one in my opinion is Avira, which is free. McAffee is so over burdened that, in my opinion, it's only slightly less irritating than a virus.

JMO,

 

[bob]

Yes and no. More viruses on PCs is because the evil-doers are going after most computers, which are Windows. Create a Mac virus and it targets 10 or 15 percent of computers.

But with any computer, being careful only works to a degree. Viruses are clever and can frequently get past even the most-careful.

So get a good virus protection program. The best one in my opinion is Avira, which is free. McAffee is so over burdened that, in my opinion, it's only slightly less irritating than a virus.

JMO,

Not quite. PC's are a prime target because virtually all of them are running some version of Windows.

Windows has an enormous hole through which malignant software might be passed. The being the idiotic ability to execute messages as if they were native code. Once a system provides this ability there are no amount of firewalls, filters, what-have-you that will prevent the truly creative from finding a way in. Thus there is no limit to the mischief that might be done.

You seldom see this sort of nonsense on real operating systems, Unix being one, there are others, that do not routinely execute messages as code.

The operative principle being that if someone can get in legitimately then anyone can get in for any reason. Consider a contest many years ago at Cal Tech. Those living in a particular dormitory were challenged to burglar-proof their rooms. The prize winner was a room where the windows and doors had been removed, dry-walled over, and painted to match the surroundings. This aptly demonstrates a corollary the above principle: If no one can get in then burglars can't get in.

 

[CES020]

It's sad that 20+ years ago I was having the same conversation with a college professor I was taking a UNIX class from. He had worked at Bell Labs when UNIX was all developed (their version of UNIX). I asked him about virus and hacking, etc. and he told me over 20 years ago that the reason people don't mess with UNIX is because the people that are skilled enough to do it are professional people that have better things to do with their time, and that they were very well compensated for their skills. Basically, he was saying that you have to be highly educated to make it happen. Not so much with Windows at the time.

It's sad that 20 years ago this was a concern and it's still a concern now. For that industry to be "at the cutting edge of technology", it sure seems like it can't fix 2 things- spam and viruses.

Earthlink seemed to solve the spam problem years ago pretty effectively. Now they are all gone and their protection system is all but disappeared.

Seems like the 2 things that should be at the top of the list on anything new coming out would be "No viruses, no spam", rather than "make is shiny with smooth icons".

 

[Techman]

Every week i read about 3-4x on here that someone has a new virus, browser hijack, spyware, etc.

At one time. Every day I would deal with a clients machine with said problems. I found after about 11 years of operating a computer repair shop that nearly all problems were self inflicted and then always blamed on a virus. Yes, I said nearly ALL problems were self inflicted and Not the result of a direct virus attack.

Trying to visit porn sites, warez traps, honey pots crack sites etc. without knowing which ones were traps was a main cause of pain.

That is why so many PC users simply dismiss the constant drivel of virus attacks.

 

[AnotherSignManiac]

Viruses will always be an issue because the ones that are on the leading edge of technology are also the same ones that can create these viruses. No matter what is created it will always be created by a human which is forgettful and not 100% accurate.


Also Macs and Unix based computers are also vunerable, Macs use to not be, but are becoming more and more everyday because more people use them. With the windows and now Mac computers less computer knowledgeable people use them, ergo good targets. To use a Unix based operation system you have to be somewhat competent of computers, and not dumb enough to click on spyware/spam/virus etc.

 

[CES020]

Yes, I said nearly ALL problems were self inflicted and Not the result of a direct virus attack.

Trying to visit porn sites, warez traps, honey pots crack sites etc. without knowing which ones were traps was a main cause of pain.

That is why so many PC users simply dismiss the constant drivel of virus attacks.

Yes, like visiting a trusted site like Signs101 last week. While computer nerds dismiss viruses on PC's saying they are no big deal, tell that to all the people that got a virus last week by just visiting the same site they always visit.

I know, I know......"they should have had their software up to date"......

Well, reality is they didn't, and they got hit.

 

[Jim Doggett]

Windows has an enormous hole through which malignant software might be passed. The being the idiotic ability to execute messages as if they were native code.

That's not a problem for me since I do not use a POP3 client (Win 7 Enterprise PC). Like the rest of my life, it's handled by Google ... LOL. Gmail, Gcalender, Android phone, Google TVs ... ahhhhhhh!!! :^)

But the thing is, whether it's done by Windows messaging or us when given an option, viruses will get through. It's only a matter of time. And a GREAT, free virus protection, Avira, will keep any Windows PC perfectly safe and not slow everything waaaaaaay down, as McAfee does, for a price.

It's easy, free and you can use the world's number one and most supported OS, save a bundle on the hardware price, and be happy and secure. IMHO.

:^)

 

[David Wright]

Trying to visit porn sites, warez traps, honey pots crack sites etc. without knowing which ones were traps was a main cause of pain.

That is why so many PC users simply dismiss the constant drivel of virus attacks.

So what are we supposed to do with our time then?

Ok, kidding aside it isn't just the enormous base of Windows computers that are the reason for viruses there. You know if was easy or could be done, Macs would be hit far more than I have heard about. The same system that frustrates us Windows users who try the Macs is the same one that keeps it far more safe.

That said, on balance I like the upsides more than the downsides. My Ipad has some nice security features but is no where near as customizable as the Android. That system is also getting a lot of malware attacks too.

 

[oldgoatroper]

To use a Unix based operation system you have to be somewhat competent of computers, and not dumb enough to click on spyware/spam/virus etc.

just need to have a Mac....

 

[SignBurst PCs]

I use FREE anti-virus/anti-malware (MSE). I set it and forget it. It updates and scans without a thought. It takes less than 5 minutes to download and install.

I am careful where I surf and stay away from trouble areas on the web. I look at it like traveling in the real world, there are places that are safe to go and others that are not safe, even if you are wearing body armor.

Modern browsers have built in warnings too. I have happened to stumble upon an infected server here and there, but my browser has warned me that it is not safe.

MS puts out updates and new Operating Systems for a reason other than stripping your wallet clean. The more up-to-date you are, the safer you are. Staying up to date and a little common sense will go a long ways against cyber threats.

To date, ZERO infections. Windows 7 systems are pretty easy to keep clean.

 

[ForgeInc]

When I started feelancing I ran virus protection for the first 5 years or so I owned a mac.

Haven't since then, and still don't on my home computers. Have never had a virus. All our machines are protected at the shop through a firewall though, just be safe.

 

[visual800]

And updates? That's crazy. I'm willing to bet your computer's part of a bot-net, and you don't even know it.

the last time a few years ago I did and update flexi crashed and my whole comp crashed since then NO MORE UPDATES! think about all the security updates and all the BS that microsoft think you need...IMO you don't.

You may say my system is infected or inferior Im running two 5 years old dells with ZERO issues! flexi , illy cs5, photoshop my stuff is fine it may not be up to windows code but I dont care, all is takes is one stupid security update

 

[WildWestDesigns]

the last time a few years ago I did and update flexi crashed and my whole comp crashed since then NO MORE UPDATES! think about all the security updates and all the BS that microsoft think you need...IMO you don't.

You may say my system is infected or inferior Im running two 5 years old dells with ZERO issues! flexi , illy cs5, photoshop my stuff is fine it may not be up to windows code but I dont care, all is takes is one stupid security update

Not enough evidence to support that conclusion and this is coming from a person that also has his windows OS updates turned off. Your conclusion may or may not be true, just don't have enough to support it.

Essentially your argument is: You did "A", you observed "B", so therefore, "A" caused "B". Does that logically follow?

Think of this example: I flew to Las Vegas (did "A"), I won lots of money (observed "B"), so therefore, when I fly to Las Vegas I'll win lots of money (therefore "A" caused "B").

I know that my example is a silly example and hopefully it is one that you won't agree with, problem is that it follows the argument structure quoted above and if you believe that the quote above is sufficient evidence then you must accept my example as it follows the same argument structure as the quote.

Again, I do have my updates disabled (for different reasons), however, when I was doing updates, I have never had an update in of itself cause a crash and those that I am aware that did have crashes after an update of some kind, there was usually something in the background that caused it, not the update in of itself.

Without trying to find out why the crash of the programs happened after an update, you are left with this time connection between the update and the crash, but that is the weakest evidence there is. I can think of some cause and effect real life situations that people wouldn't and didn't get it correct to support that as well to show that it's not something that is reliable until all the evidence is in and sometimes people don't have that luxury.

Once again you may be correct, just the evidence doesn't support it.

 

[ThinkRight]

Not enough evidence to support that conclusion and this is coming from a person that also has his windows OS updates turned off. Your conclusion may or may not be true, just don't have enough to support it.

Essentially your argument is: You did "A", you observed "B", so therefore, "A" caused "B". Does that logically follow?

Again, I do have my updates disabled (for different reasons), however, when I was doing updates, I have never had an update in of itself cause a crash and those that I am aware that did have crashes after an update of some kind, there was usually something in the background that caused it, not the update in of itself.

The computer I have now,opened box turned machine on,connected to network.
Before I completed setting up everything (25min) windows update wanted to reboot puter to finish installing updates.
Computer shut down and never would boot back up.
I never would have thought it would happen .
Just my experience.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The computer I have now,opened box turned machine on,connected to network.
Before I completed setting up everything (25min) windows update wanted to reboot puter to finish installing updates.
Computer shut down and never would boot back up.
I never would have thought it would happen .
Just my experience.

That would have me wondering. Not able to finish something and it shut down to finish something of it's own.

It still seems like there is something missing that reconciles it all. I just don't like everything boiling down to a timing issue. I have been on the receiving end of anger based exclusively on the timing of it all, when it was determined to have actually been caused by something done years before that just now reached a point of failure that it showed up.

 

[bob]

...Essentially your argument is: You did "A", you observed "B", so therefore, "A" caused "B". Does that logically follow?...

Just do you know, that's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', or 'after this therefore caused by this', a formal fallacy.

Knowing the nomenclature is half of all wisdom.

 

[signmeup]

Avast seems to do a pretty good job for me. I use the free version.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Just do you know, that's called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', or 'after this therefore caused by this', a formal fallacy.

Knowing the nomenclature is half of all wisdom.

Your are assuming that I didn't know it in the first place. Not mentioning it does not in of itself mean that I don't know it. It might lean towards that direction, but in of itself doesn't mean that.

Think of this way, does my not having post hoc ergo propter hoc in anyway invalidate my argument? If it does, that's one thing, but I don't see how it does, but if it does let me know then that's shame on me. Very few times will I actually give the (for lack of a better term) "titles" to fallacies unless they are commonly used (strawman, ad hominem etc) otherwise it has been my experience that people lose focus of the point of the argument.