Anti-virus Vendors Eye Cell Phones

coastin writes "Are cell phones and handheld devices the next big market for anti-virus software vendors? While there have been more than 150 cell phone viruses discovered since 2004, compared to over 150,000 Windows PC viruses the count seems low at this time. Marketing researcher Gartner suggests a widespread attack could surface by the end of next year. With the number of cellular devices sold in 2005 far beyond that of Windows PCs and no choice of anti-virus protection for most cellular device customers, should the cell carriers listen more closely to the anti-virus vendors?"

Comments

If a widespread attack doesn't happen...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

They would have to create one. Microsoft is going to eventually shut down their most lucrative market since consumers are more likely to trust Microsoft's own virus solution rather than pay a 3rd party. (I'm not saying that it is actually true that Microsoft is a better security guardian, but that's how average people are likely to react.) So the virus software vendors are about to become frantic for an alternate source of revenue.

Network Filtering

[MankyD]

Not that I support censorship in any way, but do not the cell companies have very tight control over their networks, and thus the data flow over them? What's to prevent them from disallowing certain data (i.e. known viruses) from flowing to their customers?

<sarcasm>I mean honestly, can't they just check the evil bit?</sarcasm>

don't trust anti-virus vendors

[radarsat1]

Part of the reason I don't use anti-virus software, other than because they slow down and hamper your computer, is because they are the ONLY corporate entity that literally have it in their self-interest for a virus to show itself once in a while on your computer. I'm not saying they write the damn viruses (I'm not saying they don't either) but I do think they try to make sure something will slip by once in a while, just to keep it in the public's mind that they need this software, so that they'll keep it installed and pay for upgrades.

Of course on my linux side I have no virus problems, but it's also been ages since I've dealt with a windows virus, because I keep things updated and use better web browsers and email clients, and I also strongly suggest the same practises to people I know, people who I know will come to me for help when they get one. Viruses just aren't a problem if you use your computer intelligently and remain somewhat suspicious of odd behaviour.

All I'm saying is that it's sort of counter-productive, if you think about it, to have an entire industry who's very existance depends on malware, and who, if they are doing their jobs, would eliminate their very reason for being there in the first place. (Sure, the police are the same thing, but that is exactly why the police are a public entity, and not corporately owned.)

You'd think Verizon would stop them.

[lancejjj]

I'm sure Verizon would be very interested in cell phone virus software if it can help them continue to prevent customers from using software other than Verizon's own software.

But I doubt that such software would be used to improve service or reliability from the customer's point of view.

how about less vulnerable phones?

[Lxy]

Why does my phone need to have the ability to execute malicious code in the first place? A phone does not need a web browser, chat client, and e-mail client. A phone certainly DOES NOT need any sort of scripting engine. Why did the cell phone manufactures go and add vulnerabilities into the phone in the first place?

Re:how about less vulnerable phones?

[drinkypoo]

I wish you pathetic luddites would fuck off back to the shack in the Ozarks that you crawled out of. Further, I wish the idiot moderators that keep modding you types as "insightful" would lose their eyesight - I can't imagine anyone being tenacious enough to read and mod slashdot on a braille reader, although now that I think of it probably 100% of those assholes would do so. The fact is that you are so far in the minority that you don't even show up as a inconsequential statistical anomaly. You don't even rate being described as "random noise".

The fact is, everyone that matters wants complicated cellular telephones. Who matters? The people who actually buy them. This is why these cellphone companies have these phone upgrade packages. It's easier to get people to stomach another $10 a month than it is to get them to stomach paying another $100 (on top of what they're paying already) when they upgrade their phone. Note the $20 discrepancy in my article - the cellphone companies are of course making something for their trouble.

If there were a worthwhile market for featureless cellular phones, they would exist. There isn't. They don't. Build a bridge, and get over it.

Protect from what?

[xdroop]

Virus protection is inherently a reactive process: until you understand the threat, you can't protect against it. (Proof: if Windows virii were understood in general correctly, you'd buy one virus scanner that would protect against any future virus. The fact that updates are constantly required illustrates the reactive nature of the business.)

So "Virus Scanners" for cell phones today will only protect against those ~150 threats that exist today. By definition, you can not protect against all future threats today (because if you could, your OS provider would have already done so).

Once threats become more widespread, the concept of a "Virus Scanner" will become more plausible.

Re:ah excellent...

[feanor512]

No. Some people would prefer one device that works as a cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, and camera. However, if you want to carry around your batbelt of accessories, go right ahead.

Re:Stupid people, smart phones

[Zeinfeld]

I've personally seen just one infected S60 phone. The owner had hit 'No' a couple of times, then just "yes yes yes really yes ok ok ok yes" to get rid of the requesters. Stupid people should not have ANY control over their hardware.

It sounds to me that the 'stupid person' here was the engineer that designed a user interface that didn't allow the user to say 'no means no'.

The feature of javascript that allows programs to repeatedly display popups requesting a code download is a serious bug. It is the result of the Netscape mindset that the content producer 'owns' the user experience, not that the user does. It isn't the only think Netscape screwed up in the service of their real customers, the companies buying the Netscape servers and PSO engagements.

I believe that there will be a market for cell phone anti-virus but not one that McAfee and Symantec are likely to make money from. The wireless customers are going to consider this the problem of the carriers, they are right. Anti-Virus systems for cell phones will all work at the network level.