Slashdot Mirror
Can the Malware Industry be Trusted?
Joe Barr writes "Is the entire anti-virus / malware industry as rotten as it appears? I started digging into it as a result of the recent lame, unsubstantiated assertions of viral threats to Linux by Kaspersky Lab, but the practice doesn't seem to start or end with them. Who knows, maybe it's pandemic in that entire segment of the IT industry."
An industry blowing problems up to be bigger than they seem in order to sell more product? Conspiracy!
The only real crime here is that we've let ourselves be suckered by them for as long as we have.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Surely they mean the anti-malware industry?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
If this guy doesn't know that Symantec == Norton, I don't think I have any use for his opinions on malware companies.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
If you assume that every person is motivated by money alone, then you are forced to conclude that anti-malware companies have the greatest incentive to produce malware.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Agree or disagree with the points of this article (I mostly agree), there is an elephant in the middle of the room everyone ignores.
From the article (emphasis mine):
"Only the stupidest dolts in the universe?" Aside from being a little insulting, it's just not true. Many intelligent people believe these reports simply because, as the article points out elsewhere, because it is repeated the lie becomes truth.
People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise in some subject matter. What other result would you expect? There are too many topics, too many reports, and too many things demanding attention, general consumers and lay people, appropiately (though naively), rely on integrity of reporting bodies to filter that part of their world not their specialty(ies).
Reporting organizations (e.g., CERT) have an ethical responsibility to normalize and make canonical data issued for general consumption.
Unfortunately the technology world today is Microsoft's sandbox, and seemingly if anyone wants to play, be it media, competition, and lately even government, Microsoft seems to be able to control the rules. Sigh, again.
Anyone can collect information about bluetooth devices on the go, and with simple Tooting action you could try to force the user install malicious software on his device. But whats the point of all this ?? In the end you gain not much, except for maybe a list of personal contacts which you can use for complete psychopate experiences. You dont need an array of devices to see if a certain exploid is working, just get your hands on the device implementation docs or just start reverse-engineering the stack on your own device. On an average train journey I discover 10/15 Bluetooth enabled devices on my Mobile. Using the same Mobile, I also discover 200/240 WiFi Access-Points with zero encryption if I travel by car. The latter at least gains enough connectivity to browse 'Slashdot'. Trying each door to see if a car is locked, is pointless unless your trying to steal it.
Every year, US-Cert produces huge fireworks in the security trade press with their annual summary of misinformation about security flaws. [...] The summary gives a total for flaws found in Windows and another total for flaws found in Unix and Linux. Last year, those totals were 812 for Windows and 2,312 for Unix/Linux.
Oh ****! Quick, someone tell me how to upgrade to this "Windows" thing!
Microsoft has established itself as a standard so much so that even a 'unbiased' consumer organization such as Consumer Reports basically only acknowledges MS when reviewing computers and making recommendations. Apple is a player but not top tier. It's no wonder AV companies pander to MS and spread FUD. Logically, one would think that a business that exists to correct flaws in another product would lead consumers to shy away form that product but no, because MS is a standard.
Not really...after all, these firms have absolutely no interest in eliminating the problem, but only in treating the symptoms. That's why they continually endorse an OS that is legendary for its security holes, while spreading FUD about more secure alternatives like *nix and MacOS, which have a chance of actually fixing the underlying problem.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
There's an entertaining presentation from Defcon X given by Gobbles (with help from Silvio Cesare and The Unix Terrorist) - 'Wolves Among Us' - the video is worth watching for a laugh, several laughs, at the expense of many so called experts. http://www.defcon.org/html/links/defcon-media-arch ives.html
Silvio: "The Security Industry Does Not Want Security, They Want Insecurity"
Seriously, people buy anti-virus because they fear viruses, who tells them what viruses to fear??? How strange that those anti-virus companies are all doom and gloom.
Sure.
OK if I install this spyware in your computer and just backup your credit card numbers for you without your permission?
Thanks.
Oh, no, that's ok, you don't have to answer. We'll do it anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well, I certainly don't trust the malware industry :)
Seriously, however, I never buy any peice of security software without looking for testing results and reviews.
Also, I will never use any product that makes false positives intentionally (to scare the user into using/buying the product). That's just asking for trouble.
Yes it is, and no it can't.
ilovegeorgebush
The whole thing is a protection racket. The more they can make you afraid of the consequenses and aware of the "threat" the more you are willing to pay for protection. The whole thing is based on a vulnerable infrastructre.
If there was a solid infrastructre that was trusted the whole industry would disappear. The industry is based on the Microsoft Operating system and its designed vulnerabilities. The industry would not exist without the flaws in the Microsoft Operating systems and workflow. If Microsoft fixed its stuff, or if people migrated to a solid infrastucture the industry would disappear. I am sure the industry as a whole is looking at Linux as a big threat, it could destroy their whole reason for existing.
As a whole the Linux client is not a market for this industry. They need to make Linux/OSS users feel the threat so we will by their product.
Can Malware Industry be Trusted?
Unfortunately, Ethics and Morality are lacking in many Industries and Corporations.
Agreed, the industry is full of FUD, along with other substances.
Noticed a copy of AntiVirus for Mac OSX @ CompUSA last week. $59! Three questions:
1) Who buys this stuff?
2) Why so much?
3) Why?
To my knowledge there is only one virus in the wild for OSX and it never really made an impact. I understand that AV for Mac scans for the billions of Windows viruses, but considering that the Mac is extraordinarily unlikely to become infected, it's similarly unlikely a Mac will pass on a virus. I know it's part of being a good net citizen, but ultimately scanning email is your own responsibility. I don't scan for Linux or mainframe viruses, or iPaq scripts. Why should I scan for Windows viruses?
Or am I missing something?
"Can the Malware Industry be Trusted?"
Of course it can't! It's the friggin' malware industry! Their business plan centers around installing stuff on your PC that you don't want on there and didn't ask for, and abusing your PC without your permission for their own purposes. Why on God's green earth would someone like that be trusted?
idiots, dolts, crap. There is a lot of name calling in there. He sounds like a teenager complaining about her friends. I don't claim to be the most articulate person around, but this guy shouldn't be writing articles. People judge you by the words you use. I got so distracted by his name calling I had to post before finishing the article, and I'm wondering if I'll be able to reach the end or take his side given the tone.
Yagu makes a good point...being in the IT industry, sometimes we mistakenly perceive things as being blindingly obvious, when in point of fact, it's still quite a mystery to the layman. Characterizing Joe Sixpack as a 'stupid dolt' equates ignorance with stupidity, which is fallacious and counterproductive.
Obviously, the 'stupid dolts' are smart enough to draw conclusions based upon the available intel they have access to...the real problem is that, as the author correctly pointed out, the lies are repeated until they become the truth. GIGO, and all that jazz.
There's no cure for stupidity, but there is a cure for ignorance: education. If we want to fight this FUD, we need to do it by teaching the truth, rather thn dismissing the vast majority of users as 'stupid dolts'. When we do that, we play right into the hands of the malware companies.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
- The malware industry cannot be trusted to report when things are improving or a better alternative to their bread and butter os exists.
- Doctors poor at telling hypochondriac when there is nothing wrong with them.
- Car companies not reliable source of information about bicycles and public transit.
- Lawyers cannot be trusted to create legislation that doesn't criminalize everything.
- Politicians appear to be lying or misleading to get elected.
- Wolves unwilling to notify sheep in advance of attack.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
... is even lower quality. The inflammatory tone is just embarassing to read (though by and large, I agree with the gist of the content).
Not all the readers would necessarily know that the two are the same, so it might be just to impress both names in their mind. That or make the 'conspiracy' larger than it seems./
i've always thought that maybe anti-virus and anti-spyware companies would produce virus's and spyware, i mean how do you get better job security than fixing something that you broke.. and people STILL say thanks!
This is my reason for liking Clam antivirus, an open source product and maintained by the public. The governments should sponsor such products with constant donations.
... but then, you used to be able to trust slashdot to put a disclaimer in the article when linking to sites owned by the same company.
Malware publishers are motivated by the money they get from what they do. It's not about morals, it's not about good business, it's ONLY about money. Money is the most powerful motivator there is. If you wave enough cash in front of a group of people, no matter what they have to do, someone will take you up on your offer.
There will always be takers. So by default we can say that the malware business will remain rotten to the core until it is not only made illegal, but also prossicuted ruthlessly until which point it is neither proffitable nor worth the risks. Right now, there are mountains of money to be made, and little or no risk of prossicution, so it continues unchecked.
Don't expect this to change any time soon.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
As long as there have been companies selling antivirus software, the rumor has been circulated that they were also developing new viruses to keep themselves in business. In reality, I think that there will always be plenty of "volunteers" to handle this aspect of the business for them.
The Malware "industry" can be trusted to do what is best for the Malware industry.
The anti-Malware industry, which is what this article is talking about, can be trusted to do what's best for the anti-Malware industry.
The former are Black Hat. Let's hope the latter are and remain White Hat.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
i have always believed the people producing the most garbage on the net are the people who's jobs are supported by it. use AVG free personal ad aware free a firewall and your all set. I have been running this setup for years with 0 issues. (i even missed on on the sony rootkit because i listen to streamed music ;)
yay me
Kill your TV
The issue is not whether Joe Sixpack believes what he reads ... it's whether the IT "journalist" merely repeated the claims of a company with a financial interest in fostering a certain perception.
Joe Barr admitted that he had done that with the claims about Apple, but he then spent time doing the research.
And the "journalists" that "report" on the IT industry have a long and colourful history of bias and willful ignorance. There is no excuse for that. And it is those reports by those "journalists" that keep Joe Sixpack so ignorant of the real facts.
I always thought my experience here was ironic. Any thoughts? I mean I have to set my computer to promiscuous to install an anti-virus program! Weird.
http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/mcaf-irony/67
No.
Yes, the anti-virus industry is as rotten as it appears, if not more so. In talking to non-expert computer users who use anti-virus, anti-virus causes more problems than it solves. Anti-viral software with automatic updating is essentially like installing a rootkit on your computer controlled by the anti-virus vendor. With just a little bit of training, and perhaps a different email client than Outlook, as well as using Firefox instead of (or patching) IE, viruses and malware are easily avoided.
Anyone who is serious about security doesn't run anti-virus because it does not fix the root issues of vulnerability.
Thy key is that anti-virus can be sold on fear and, since the average computer user doesn't understand that there is nothing mystical about viruses and their vectors are easily identified, fear sells a product that actually makes your computer less secure and less usable. That said, there are some good free programs out there, like ClamAV and Spybot Search & Destroy to help you as a system administrator check out suspicious files or clean up a mess on a specific case by case basis (the latter only applying to Windows).
Every year, US-Cert produces huge fireworks in the security trade press with their annual summary of misinformation about security flaws. The idiots in the press repeat the lie verbatim and the lie becomes real. What is the lie? That Unix/Linux is less secure than Windows. Granted, only the stupidest dolts in the universe -- and the trade press -- are going to buy that crap, but they put it out there anyway.
I got to that point in the article and remembered the red ink on a paper I wrote in grad school, wherein the professor said, "too pejorative to be taken as an objective analysis of the topic."
In all things academic or reporting, if you do not really have it, then at least fake objectivity....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Rewind to 1998 everybody. I read one article during the "millenium crisis" about a school district that bought all new refrigerators because some "expert" told them that their regular refrigerators weren't Y2K compliant and they might stop working - or blow up. We've seen the junk science before, we see it today - it will be with us tomorrow my brothers.
Whether or not the malware industry can be trusted, anyone who calls a company a "servile buffoon" probably can't be trusted to be a impartial and logical journalist.
:) in both the anti-malware and journalism industries. I don't trust the Kaspersky Kooks at all, but McAffee and some of the other companies (e.g. PC Tools Software, F-Secure) do have some credibility in my book.
:P
Things are never as extreme as they seem - there are good & bad guys (and in-between guys, and girls too!
Then too, we know that the only way that all those evil writers can sell their stories is to make them sound melodramatic...
Spam vendors and open source vendors make lots of whacko claims.
[...] extremely low false positive rate, with less than one in one million messages being a false positive.
A few years ago, Bayesian classification seemed a promising way to filter spam.
[...] best recorded levels of accuracy have included 99.991% by one avid user (2 errors in 22,786) and 99.987% by the author (1 error in 7000), which is ten times more accurate than a human being!
That translates to better than 99.984% accuracy, which is over ten times more accurate than human accuracy
In the game of cat and mouse between spammers and anti-spam vendors, spammers and hackers quickly developed new techniques to "fool" the Bayesian filtering software.
File these under UFO sightings.
The anti-malware software industry is like the insurance industry. They want to provide their paying customers with benefit, but the last thing they ever want to do is encourage consumer behavior, law, or product changes that actually eliminate the problem, thus putting themselves out of business.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Perhaps the question needs wider phrasing: can the IT industry - not just the malware side - be trusted? Personally I don't think so because they seem addicted to denying the consequences of their own actions or foisting the cost on the public. You can see this everywhere from the paltry, tokenish efforts to tackle malware and spam by corporations that regularly turn in billions in profits, to the Heath-Robinson-like, energy-guzzling design of the PC itself, to dumping clean up and recycling via shady deals with the Chinese. Let's not even look at moral issues like DRM and Hollywood or Chinese censors.
OTOH, no industry can be trusted. If it wasn't for some tireless public-minded advocates the auto industry would probably have us still driving deathtraps with engines designed in the 1950s or the pharma industry, for example, would have us growing three heads while being charged 50 bucks for a paracetamol.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Migrating to another OS does NOT eliminate the people writing malware.
Changing your shoes does not change the weather.
But walking with sandals in a blizzard is not actually helping yourself.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
McAfee somewhat blurs the distinction.
Parent Insightful
I saw a special on Quahog 5 news. According to Trishia Takinowa, you can trust the Volcano Insurance industry. Especially if there hasn't been an eruption in awhile... it only increases the odds!
I am the biggest proponent of linux and use it daily, even on this laptop.
The assertion and assumption that linux is immune to worms, viruses and other stuff that affects windows today, is dangerous.
Linux just isn't a common target.
As more people migrate to linux, you'll see more people running and living in it as root out of stupidity and/or ignorance. If you run as root, you are just as vulnerable as an average home user running windows.
When people start targeting linux for viruses and other malware, you'll see the same issues for the same reason.
-AC
Is this really any different then what a lot of industries do? Just turn on your television and your bombarded with drug company ads for E.D. and a myriad of other aliments. Now excuse me while I go take my pills for restless leg syndrome.
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
Can the anti-malware industry be trusted? Can microsoft be trusted? Can the IT industry be trusted?
One thing that all of this overlooks, is that it doesn't take malice for hysteria to spread.
premise: people fear what they don't understand.
premise: most people don't understand computers.
I have a friend who fancied himself a home-taught computer expert. Armed with TweakXP, a few anti-virus tools, and a small handful of other gadgets, he was always offering to "optimize" and "fix" his friends' computers.
And lo! and behold, every single computer that was ever brought to him had "a major virus" or "a serious trojan" problem on it. Of course, there is so much media hype about viruses (and people's bad browsing habits) that this was fairly believable. However, the mere consistency of his diagnoses started making me suspicious....
Sure enough, after a few in-depth conversations, it turns out that he was using bad virus-detection software: some unknown little program that he assumed was "better than all the rest" because it "always found more" (it didn't occur to him that most of them were false positives); and moreover, it turns out he didn't even have a clear understanding of what a "virus" is.
But let me tell you: he had a stream of people in and out of his apartment that were absolutely convinced that ANY time there was EVER a problem with their machine, it MUST have been because of a virus.
Zero Day Exploits.
2 more words:
Snake oil.
The best protection against malware is dumping Microsoft. No other platform is vulnerable. Your best argument against this is to write a Linux or Mac or BSD virus and dissiminate it.
Good luck, Symantic et al have been trying for years to no avail.
Not since F-Secure "discovered" the Sony RootKit and decided "work with Sony" rather than remove that crap from my system have I trusted them. In fact, as a litmus test ANY anti-virus software that still doesn't immediately and completely remove all known Sony and other DRM infections is just shy of useless in my opinion. They clearly do not have my own user's interests at heart -- and we're the ones paying these jokers! Removing StarForce would be nice too!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
#include
#include "OStest.h";
main(){
if((is_OSX() || is_Unixey()) && !has_slashdot_flames()){
}else if(is_MS_OS())
}}
Linux and OS X have a good record for resisting drive-by installs. But as TimC points out, the threat model has to include users downloading dancing cursors and weather forecasting applets with 20-page EULAs, readable three lines at a time, which bury a cryptic line or two which means "all your base are belong to us".
There are operating systems that can protect against that threat. They're not mainstream in design, and neither Linux nor OS X is among them.
>please consider that I'm Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack -- four digit Slashdot id -- the cognitive dissonance is too much, I can't survi
Anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-adware stuff ..... it's all closed-source payware. That alone just goes to show that the primary motivation for writing it is not to get the job done properly, but to milk people for money.
Open Source software, which by definition is approaching perfection like 1-e**(-k*x) approaches unity, will never, ever be subject to malware. It's the very antithesis of everything the anti-malware industry is about.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Can I trust a man who breaks into my house, rapes my wife and kills my children? I dunno. Any takers?
// This is not a sig.
Any time someone claims Windows is more secure than Linux, ask them this: If Windows is so secure, why are the AV companies pushing harder at the market for Windows AV products than for Linux?
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Does the pharma industry exaggerate the bird flu threat?
Does the car industry exaggerate the additional safety an extra airbag on every corner of the car provides?
Does the low-carb food industry exaggerate the effect low-carb food has on your weight?
Does the perfume industry exaggerate the amount of stink you produce if you don't sprinkle their 10-bucks-a-shot stuff under your arms?
Can ANY industry be trusted that they don't blow the effect of their product (or the threat of "what if you don't buy it") out of proportion?
Actually, the ONLY thing you can definitly rely on is that anyone who wants to sell his product will tell you that the world's coming to an end if you don't use it.
I'm working for one of those anti-malware companies. Yes, there is a threat. No, not for YOU. At least, for most of you. Simply tick the following questions:
Do you think patching your OS is for weenies?
Do you start anything sent to you from anywhere?
Do you forgo all common sense when you log into the web?
If you answer "no, yes, no", grats, you're safe. PERIOD. No AV needed. Doesn't hurt, but you can do without.
For the other 99% of internet users, there's anti-malware programs. No, they're not perfect. No, the world's not coming to an end when you don't use it (though I wish it would make their computers explode so they just MIGHT get hit by the ClueByFour(tm)). Yes, there are a LOT of fraudulent tools out there that hype and rant about oh how insecure your system is and that you have a bazillion infections even if there are none, just to lure you into buying their crap.
Usually, we try to "be good", though, and actually provide a service for the clueless masses that trample through my sweet little net these days. Yes, take our marketing goons and stick them with the lawyers of the RIAA for the sake of humanity (thinking about it, round up the rest of the marketeers from other companies while you're at it), then fire them into the sun.
But I do think we do more good than ill. At least for those who go to the 'net without the foggiest idea of the threats that are our there for them. Yes, that even provides YOU, as a clued person, a service. It might be one less moron with a spambot to tell you that c1sali5 got cheaper again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Disclaimer: I am employed by an anti-virus vendor -- that creates Linux anti-virus products. However, their main selling point is to limit the spread of Windows viruses in heterogenous environments.
I work in AV industry. Linux malware does exist and it exists in-the-wild. What do you think about a 6MB rootkit, that does Perl, PHP, SSH plus whatever you want? That is Linux.Rootkit.Agent.O We sent the first sample of that to Kaspersky, it had been working silently on customer's server for at least 3 months.
It is a matter of fact that that no current general purpose computer is safe from malware, because all of them are von Neumann principle devices, with unified storage of data and instruction code. There is no hard boundary to prevent data from becoming instructions (=infection) or programs modifying themselves and each other (=> rootkit). The NX-bit, Intel Virtualization Technology and other hardware patches have just recently started to fix this fundamental flaw.
It really doesn't matter if the OS is Windoze or Linux or foot-pedal (Apple uses single-button mouse, that is). Since Windows is the most popular OS (Apple is small minority) and the likely choice of beginners (thus Linux excluded), it is the ideal target of malware.
Malware is not written for fun nowadays, it is business. Malware conquers you a botnet to herd, so you can multiply and deliver spam or blackmail companies with DDoS attacks. Why spend time to write generic Linux malware for a mass epidemic, when 20,000 home windoze PCs can do anything, like down a Top500 firm's webportal? Only specific Linux malware gets written, plus in Un*x circles hand hacking is more traditional than viruses.
I feel Linuxers are actually complaining about the lack of viruses, because that means they are unable to make progress in the desktop/laptop arena. If ever there will be millions of daily use Linux desktops, there will be ample malware for them, let your wish be granted!
Otherwise, Kaspersky Labs is one of the AV companies with better support for Linux, in workstation, server and gateway role. As far as I can tell from sales, they are about the only viable choice for commercial AV for Linux, since GeCad RAV was assimilated by M$. Why bite their heads off?
Otherwise, the article was so biased and borderline hate-speech, even Fox News would refuse to carry it. No wonder he could place it on NewsForge exclusively: the BBC was not interested...
The virus-naming confusion he mentions is indeed the shame of AV industry. This is what you get when market-driven private entities are competing with each other in a media-oriented world. Government leadership and hand-selection gives you the Apollo programme, but I heard you geeks do not like that. Anyhow, the virus naming mess should be fixed ASAP, possibly with a DNS-like system based on IPv6. I've been thinking about that a lot. It could work retroactively to converge on a single name, no big problem, many AV software already expect constant network connection anyhow.
BTW, AV companies do not write viruses. If they wanted to you, would have no chance. There are many bright people working there, just try to crack this quizz program: http://www.t2.fi/bin/t206-challenge.exe
Really, getting people to run an EXE from the 'net under the guise of trying to determine if they are "smarter" than the anti-malware crowd. Good one. If you run it, you are obviously dumber, no matter WHAT the result is.
Now, on to malware on Linux/Unix, and root-kits. Sure, it CAN happen, and it is quickly dealt with. I simply use hashes on files, and off-site them (tripwire).
Periodically, the hardware is refreshed with the files corresponding to the correct hash. Which ensures that the MAXIMUM time a root-kit can live is the time to refresh. Of course, the original vector could be exploited again -- I rely on regular security updates to plug those.
YMMV
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Whenever I think of AV software I am reminded of the Monty Python skit: "Army Protection Racket". In the skit, Michael Palin and Terry Jones portray a couple of mafiosos and they wander around the office of an army Colonel, casually pushing objects off the desk, the shelves, etc.. All the while they say things like, "You've got a nice army base here, Colonel. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it." They imply that bad things might happen like all the tanks might break or the squad of paratroopers might catch on fire...
"We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week."
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/racket.htm
Do I trust the anti-malware companies??? Of course not...
Do I pay the protection money??? Of course I do...
Im sure they play it up to sell more product... and additionally as Ive been thinking for years.. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the larger anti-virus companies were directly responsible for some of what gets circulating out there.
>People trust "media" to the extent they don't have expertise in some subject matter. What other result would you expect?
I think that's a critically important observation, and if you extrapolate a little you get to an uncomfortable realization: people look for news that reaffirms what they want to hear. With the proliferation of news sources, you can find specialized news feeds, and end up with a situation where hundreds of thousands of Americans believe we found WMD's in Iraq -- because the repeated message becomes true. And if the news source you're listening to says what you want to hear (and why wouldn't it? coz that's why you chose to listen to them, after all) you're less likely to question it, and you have a positive feedback loop for isolation and polarization of groups of society. I wish I knew a way to avoid this situation, but I don't think it's repairable.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
SANS poses as a public-spirited entity. But anyone who deals with them knows they are all about sales and marketing. Most of their content is contributed by others, either for free, or by people who pay for the privilege. Nothing wrong with being commercial. Just don't pretend you're saving the world, and hawking overpriced training seats and vapid "certifications" while you're at it.
I used to specialize in "DitchWare". ("So your current old thing is too slow, and it's kinda clogged to boot, so you're ditching it? Gimme!") So if I started with junk... why become paranoid about it? I never used it for commerce or business. :/
Anything that snuck by the firewall on the way *in* was usually caught trying to dial *out*. Once spotlighted, I'd boot to low safe level, rename the offender to something else, rename a copy of something useful to the malware's name, and let other people's trojans load my 10 favorite programs. Ah, well, that was fun. Now I work with materials I actually have to be *responsible* for.
--TaoPhoenix
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I like to think of the example of Rusty Jones. In the northeast, road salt destroys cars. Back in the 70s and 80s, as soon as someone would buy a car, they would drive it to Rusty Jones and get their rustproofing service. As soon as car manufacturers started rustproofing cars at the factory, Rusty Jones went out of business.
The anti-virus / malware industry will be destroyed as soon as Windows is sufficently immune to viruses.
No, I will not work for your startup
That are just one company. If the entire industry is so bad, why then didn't the author have problems with the other anti malware companies?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
It's a sad day when such a thing as malware ca be referred to as an industry. It seems all too convienent to find 'Fix Your PC' ads on sites that are less than respectable. I am also sick of stuff being planted on MY PC without my consent. It's my property. There are solutions though. I recently beta tested a product called Aura from Atka Software LLC. It really takes a whole new approach to the malware 'industry'. It assumes all downloads are bad and does not allow ANY AT ALL to occur. Using Aura there is no need to wait for the security firms or others to identify something as malware. It just blocks it all unless you tell it not to. It really is worth checking out... I was just a beta tester but now I am an owner and user of the product. Check it out at GetMyAura. Try it... It will play a big role in stopping the malware industry. There is also a review here. -mwm
I've been burned by every single antimalware product I've tried, at least once, except for Avast ( http://www.avast.com/ ) versions 4 and up. I have never, ever, had a problem with Avast, on a horrible variety of machines and platforms, even cases where the machine had 500+ infestations during installation.
J.E.B.
Joshua Corps
Actually, I have seen Consumer Reports magazine review Apple computers several times, side-by-side with PCs, in their articles (in the past couple of years). I remember being impressed about the fact. I don't know about their history of doing so or if they've changed in the last year.
Now that I've established that you don't know what you're talking about. . .
As for:
I have so much confidence in your statement that I keep a copy of F-Prot for Linux running on this box at all times. While it's a commercial product, the Linux version is free for home users.
As for Open Source approaching perfection. . . if Open Source were remotely close to perfection, I wouldn't be writing Linux tutorials for money, everything would be running a GUI from which everything could be done easily and there'd be no market for Linux tutorials.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This "scandal" is nothing new.
-- Old Man Kensey
WTF??? How is faking objectivity any better?!? Do you enjoy being lied to? I guess Microsoft is a perfect company for you then, their "studies" have a perfectly objective style of writing, good luck!
At least this guy is honest. I don't need some "air of objectivity" (fake or not) to apply critical thinking and determine for myself if there is any merit to his arguments. I value content over form, any time.