Slashdot Mirror


Computer Viruses Broke 100,000 In 2004

Sammy at Palm Addict writes "The count of known computer viruses broke the 100,000 barrier in 2004 and the number of new viruses grew by more than 50% according to news from the BBC. The BBC also reports that 'phishing attempts, in which conmen try to trick people into handing over confidential data, are recording growth rates of more than 30% with attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated.'"

13 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. my confidential data by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can have my confidential data when they pry it from my dead frozen Windows OS... oh wait!

  2. Could we have a distinction here? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now how many non Windows viruses were there? You could probably count them on one hand. Let's give credit (or blame) where it is due.

    1. Re:Could we have a distinction here? by Xeo+024 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Linux vs Windows Viruses (from 2003 but still relevant).

      Some things (from the article) worth noting:

      To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it, writes SecurityFocus columnist Scott Granneman.

      "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

      It says 60,000 viruses for Windows in 2003, which escalated to 100,000 in 2004. There haven't been that many major viruses released for Linux/Unix/Mac so let's add a modest 15 to each number listed in 2003.

      So, the list comes to:

      Windows: ~100,000
      Mac: ~55
      Unix: ~20
      Linux: ~55

      and that's being really generous to Windows. Also, keep in mind what it says above: "Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

    2. Re:Could we have a distinction here? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what's the market share of Windows these days?

      Try to compare apples to apples...

      Divide the # of viruses by the user base of the affected platform, see who is ahead at that point. I have no idea, my guess is it's probably fairly even, probably just a little slanted in favor of Linux.


      Last I heard, there were something like 100 known Linux viruses, and 20 known Mac OS X viruses. Assume the current desktop market share is 3-5% each for Linux and Mac, and Windows still comes out "ahead" by quite a large margin. On the server side, of course, things look even worse for Windows.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm running Windows XP. Bill Gates says I'm safe from viruses.

  4. URGENT! by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Funny
    All slashdot users

    Phising scams are becoming more prevelant on the internet and world wide web. Unfortunately, they are now starting to show up on 'Blogs as well.

    Do to the dedication of security we in the OSS community have, we are updating our servers and account information.

    Please click the following link and verify your account information, password, and private PGP key.

    In order to Verify your identity, please have your Visa or Mastercard account number ready

  5. not suprising by spac3manspiff · · Score: 5, Informative

    The most common sentence i heard from relatives this holiday was,
    "Can you please fix my computer".
    "I accidently clicked something and my computer is slow".

  6. Distinct virsues? by Rick+Genter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Should we really consider the dozens of variants of Bagle, Netstky, etc. separate viruses? Just because the anti-virus vendors choose to implement recognition of these variants by separate signatures, are they really different viruses?

    I think it would be more interesting to know how many new virus/worm/trojan families were released year-to-year.

    --
    Don't underestimate the power of The Source
  7. obligatory comment by bigdaddyhame · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does the article mention how many of those >100,000 affected the Mac OS platform?

    The Top 10 List reads like the leader board at a chess competition.

    1) Netsky-P
    2) Zafi-B
    3) Sasser
    4) Netsky-B
    5) Netsky-D
    6) Netsky-Z
    7) MyDoom-A
    8) Sober-I
    9) Netsky-C
    10) Bagle-AA

    --
    ---- You are fully entitled to my opinion.
  8. Symantec cheated me! by sci50514 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel so cheated. My office Symantec Corporate Edition listed only 68585 viruses. Where are my other 31415 virus definition? :)

  9. complacency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because you have an ultra-secure computer doesn't mean you should be complacent about theft of confidential data.

    One of my buddies got his credit identity stolen a few months ago, he figures, by someone at a store who processed his credit application when he bought a home theatre system (Zero interest! Don't pay til way later!).

    By the time collection agencies were knocking at his door, that store had closed.

  10. So, who's responsible? by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with this topic is that Microsoft is always blamed for making an inherently insecure operating system. They are also to blame because of "too little, too late", aka. activating the firewall by default only in SP2.

    But quite frankly the ISPs and of course the individual users are to blame as well.

    Why don't broadband ISPs require boradband firewalls? Only recently have some of them started to incorporate firewalled modems, and even then they're only sent to new customers. Would this mean that existing customers would have to spend money for a new router at the ISPs demand? You bet. But given the choice between disconnection or buying a $50 router, I'm sure that the vast majority would find a way to get that $50.

    Additionally, most virii are sent over SMTP ports since they contain their own SMTP servers. I would not be against shutting down direct-from-client SMTP as long as those who run their own mail servers have the option of having their specific connection opened for SMTP traffic.

    Finally, the users absolutely MUST be educated. There are enough free tools out there that no one should be unprotected. But again who should be responsible for teaching these end users?

    At this point I would actually welcome something like a drivers license for broadband access. You don't gain the ability to use a broadband connection unless you prove to the ISP that you know the rules and that you are informed of how to be a responsible Netizen, including the use of firewalls, virus scanners, and alternate products like Mozilla, Eudora, Firefox, and others. If you break the "law" afterwards, your broadband privileges are revoked until you come into compliance.

    If people were made aware that any virus or worm outbreak cause by them would mean the complete loss of their Internet connectivity, I think we'd see the number of virus infections drop dramatically.

    But have an ISP do the responsible thing at the risk of pissing off customers? No, they'd rather spend billions of dollars a year on mail storage, spam-fighting hardware and software, increasing bandwidth usage, and always-rising amounts of mail to abuse@isp.net...and of course pass those charges onto us.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  11. strcpy, providing freedom to crackers since 1972! by ratboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Viruses still exist because programmers still use obscure C functions full of holes and obscure processors full of executable stacks.

    Please programmers, read the electronic paper "Smashing The Stack For Fun And Profit" (->Google).

    zzz