Slashdot Mirror


How To Avoid a Botnet Infection?

Taco Cowboy writes "Two of the networks in the company I work for have been zombified by different botnets. They are taken off the grid as we speak. We thought we had taken precautions against infection, such as firewall and anti-viral programs, but for some reasons we have failed. Is there any list of precautionary steps available?" I'd suggest port blocking 80 for any computer that is detected running a web browser, but that might prevent some percentage of legitimate work.

43 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I'm going to go ahead and guess the general answer most people around here are going to give.

    Linux or OSX.

    AmIright?

    1. Re:Yeah... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. That's not sufficient.

      Disallowing USB drives helped the military cut down on infections, though.

      How about: users run restricted. Using GPO's: mandatory win updates daily with reboot. Automate patching of commonly-used helpers like flash, shockwave, adobereader, firefox, java. And MS security essentials.

      Some rigorous port filters on EVERY machine and iptables rules on routers and l3 switches...a whitelist approach.

    2. Re:Yeah... by beh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, most people will say that - even though I had one of my machines broken into years ago - even though it was a linux machine... Even though it *should* have been secure, but I had been somewhat lax in keeping it updated, and hence might have left a potential door open for an attacker due to that, simply by believing linux would have been secure enough.

      But, yes, that would never stand in the way of most people saying 'linux would solve this'. I think more proactive monitoring and regular application of security fixes, etc. would help.
      Another thing that might help, is IF you need to leave users with a web-browser, try and install them in a way that the browsers are properly sandboxed. (yeah, yeah, yeah - I know 'firefox'/'chrome'/'my-other-non-IE-browsers' are safe... Sorry, I've gone past believing that...)

      I don't think there is an inherently secure OS / OS distro - at least, not beyond the moment it gets any kind of software that goes beyond its default installation...

    3. Re:Yeah... by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, that's the general answer. Probably not the correct one.

      *NOTHING* short of educating a user, or massively restricting their privileges on a computer can protect from this kind of problem. I worked at a place where we used Windows, and locked everything *really* tight, using a lot of sysinternals software (regmon/diskmon) to figure out where to allow nonprived users to write so that poorly written windows software would work for them. It's easier on Linux and MacOS, but it is still a problem.

      Remember - even if it is only the user's account, and not the whole computer that is infected, it can still cause trouble (cleanup is easier though).

      I've seen windows boxes go uncracked for years, and I've seen Linux and MacOS boxes cracked within weeks of being set up. With the proper security precautions, security flaws are mostly user based.

      That being said, in a networked environment, once one computer behind a firewall gets cracked, the floodgates have been opened, whoever did the cracking just got a firewall bypass.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Yeah... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've been hoping for competent users (and trying to educate people into competence) for decades. Hasn't happened yet - probably because the usual result of your computer getting a virus which wasn't automatically blocked is you have a legitimate excuse to do no work until such time as someone can clean up the mess.

    5. Re:Yeah... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amiga.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    6. Re:Yeah... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Funny

      AmIright?

      Urnotrong.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Yeah... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't buy the "competent users" argument.

      It is definitely the case that incompetence users can cause system compromises. "Ooh, free smilies!"(though, IT should ideally have blocked most of their most common avenues of idiocy.

      However, in a world where you can get compromised just by going to a perfectly legitimate website that happens to be running a flash ad with an embedded zero-day of some flavor, the idea that "competence" is going to save you is an unpleasant mixture of naiveté and adherence to the just-world hypothesis.

      Competence doesn't hurt, and is always a desirable quality; but it is a near-worthless foundation for a security system. First and foremost, there are many attacks from which competence will not save you. Second, and also pretty important, is that any organization of reasonable size is going to contain people hired for their competence in something other than computer security. The pool of people competent in skill X and computer security is always smaller than the pool of people competent in skill X. Even if the former pool is large enough to fulfil your needs, recruiting from it will cost more than recruiting from the entire skill X pool. Competent users are a nice perk, when they happen; but depending on them is folly.

    8. Re:Yeah... by ZeroPly · · Score: 5, Informative

      The military has reversed its policy on USB drives - because quite frankly it was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The restriction was actually preventing work from getting done, a lot of times at my unit we would leave at 3:30pm instead of finishing a project because we had no way to move files from a laptop that was not on the network to one of our machines, and IT help was not available. You're talking about millions of hours of worker productivity lost because IT could not figure out a way to make one of the most useful technologies safe. The USB restriction is precisely the way NOT to conduct security - unless you're lazy and don't care much about your users actually work.

      IT people make the common mistake of "the NSA does it that way" + "the NSA is very secure" = "this is a secure way of doing it". You're not the NSA. Look at your users first and tailor the solution around them.

      There is no quick answer to this. You can't ask "how to do I prevent bot infections?" any more than you can ask "how can I keep my body healthy?" It's just too general a question. The solution is going to involve assessment of your particular situation, and the combination of the appropriate products and policies.

      --
      Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
    9. Re:Yeah... by v1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Competent users maybe?

      As far as "programming errors" go, I'd label "expect competent users" as "#1".

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    10. Re:Yeah... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes and no.

      In the case of the DoD, I'd be looking closer to the NSA way of doing things than not. Too much risk of a mission critical piece of data leaking or of some critical infrastructure piece in C-cubed being crippled by other things. Seriously.

      If you have issues with your users in the context of this- perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your software, hardware, etc. Ease of use will cause problems with security each and every time. No, it doesn't need to be complicated- but ease of use will invariably inject exploit paths where you didn't want them. So, you should only make it as easy as it makes sense to do so in the context of security. For the DoD, I would have thought the problems they were having with USB thumbs would be a red-flag item for the system choices they're making, but apparently not.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    11. Re:Yeah... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah, VMS, the only OS to be banned from Defcon for being too secure. They had to invent a 'must run on x86' rule to keep it out.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Yeah... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An old boss of mine used to call it the "Soft creamy center security model".

      He was also the one who had us implementing packet filtering on each and every individual box. It was some work, but it was worth it.

      Compartmentalization is good, if you are smart about it.

      Another good analogy is "Defense in depth". Should you have a firewall? Yes. You should also patch regularly, sniff packets with an IDS, packet filter on every machine, run tripwire (or equivalent), have antivirus (on platforms that require it :cough: windows :cough:), seperate users segments from server segments, seperate out a DMZ for services, have a password policy, educate users.

      No one of those things is going to protect you fully. All of them together, has a good chance of making you a far less appealing target with a very unsatisfying and sour center, rather than soft and chewy goodness.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:Yeah... by jimicus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which means the result needs to be an inquiry from Information Security and a measured punishment from HR. "Infosec found that you violated charter 4.b of our computer usage policy, 'clicking the monkey'. You have only one more demerit before termination. Please review our computer usage policies again. Here's a pamphlet."

      This is the common reply on /., and while it might work in highly regulated industries, there are lots of industries which aren't highly regulated and the opinion that "dealing with IT security issues is squarely the IT department's problem" goes right to the top.

      Arguably they're right. All we're doing by saying "discipline or fire people who won't follow the policies we propose" is making it Somebody Else's Problem.

    14. Re:Yeah... by c++0xFF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's two factors at work, but people only tend to focus on the first:

      1) Security through obscurity
      2) Security through diversity

      One reason Linux doesn't get attacked is because it's "obscure" -- few people use it on the desktop. (Servers are another matter, but we're talking botnets at the moment.) If roles were reversed and Linux were used on the majority of desktops, it's possible that it would be nearly as vulnerable.

      But remember that the roles will never be fully reversed. Even if only a small percentage of desktops are moved to Linux, everybody benefits. Call it the desktop of "herd immunity." Imagine if Windows, OSX and Linux each had 33% of the market. In this situation, the damage any one attack could cause is dramatically reduced, regardless of which OS is attacked. It doesn't matter which one is more secure: all benefit from the mere presence of the others.

      This is, of course, ignoring the diversity within Linux itself.

    15. Re:Yeah... by selven · · Score: 3, Funny

      #1? So what's the error above that?

    16. Re:Yeah... by Binestar · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's easy, #0: Expect competent programmers.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  2. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop letting users use your computers or just accept that shit happens was my suggestion. Windows, OS X, or linux. If users touch it, they'll fuck it up.

    1. Re:No by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So make it a persistent state. Every computer lab on campus had a 'deep freeze' piece of software installed.

      You HAD to save your files to your shared drive. If you rebooted the PC, the entire PC was reimaged back to a 'clean' state.

      I'm sure such software works for Linux (if not just get a Live CD/LiveUSB).

      Disable executable access for anything running on a shared drive and there shouldn't be anyway for them to permanently do any damage.

      No matter how they screw a computer up, a reboot will fix it.

    2. Re:No by kainewynd2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You HAD to save your files to your shared drive. If you rebooted the PC, the entire PC was reimaged back to a 'clean' state.

      I love Deep Freeze, Centurion Guard, Drive Shield, etc... but it's not fool proof.

      At one of my former employers, we had something like 700 Windows PCs out in various labs and all equipped with Drive Shield. If one of them got infected, reboot and all was well... right?

      Well, kind of. Since we were not allowed to automatically reboot these machines (24/7 labs), some of these stayed up for weeks, which opened them up to all sorts of fun stuff. In short, I spent about 200-300 man hours manually rebooting machines, convincing the administration to change the policies on automatic reboots, and working with the guy in charge of our PC lab image to implement security features to protect against this sort of thing in the future (automatic A/V update on boot, for example).

      Comparably, it took me about 40 hours to build a Terminal Server and another 60 to build and install Thin Clients to replace a bunch of those machines...

      --
      I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
  3. Users by oojah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You'll probably find that most of your problems will go away if you get rid of your users :)

    --
    Do you have any better hostages?
  4. What gets around Firewalls and AVS? by Drethon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a coder not IT so my knowledge of security pretty much stops at installing anti-virus and setting up a firewall. I have not found any problems on my computers but it is quite possible I've missed active bots with such simple protections.

    So my question is: Is firewall and anti-virus really not that effective and if so how do bots get around firewall and anti-virus?

    1. Re:What gets around Firewalls and AVS? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, a firewall is usually configured to let some things in; if you give your users internet access then you are at risk of them downloading a virus form the internet, similarly emails may tempt people to open executable attachments.

      Virus writers are constantly trying to find ways to circumvent antivirus programs. Regularly applying updates helps, but you could still be one of the first people hit by a new virus. Once infected some viruses interfere with AV programs so that they can't be removed even by later versions.

    2. Re:What gets around Firewalls and AVS? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Think of anti-virus as a vaccination. When you receive a vaccination, it protects you against the specific threat that the vaccination is designed to protect you from. The same holds true for anti-virus software. There is no magical "this program will destroy your computer or steal your personal information" opcode in software, so anti-virus software is designed to detect things it knows to be suspicious. If something is unknown (either because it is new and there aren't virus definition files for it or if your virus definition files are out of date because your 30-day trial has expired or you're not connected to the Internet or the software fails to automatically update or your anti-virus software has been compromised or switched off), your anti-virus software has a very slim chance of picking something malicious.

      That is why an anti-virus package wouldn't stop threats newer than its definition files.

    3. Re:What gets around Firewalls and AVS? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So my question is: Is firewall and anti-virus really not that effective and if so how do bots get around firewall and anti-virus?

      No they're not. Trojans are becoming much more adept at avoiding antivirus (mainly because most antivirus is essentially a glorified "grep for this sequence of bytes", which doesn't work very well with polymorphic infectors) and much better at remaining hidden once installed.

      A few years ago it was fairly obvious because an infected computer had all the speed and grace of a slug break-dancing in black treacle and most AV vendors' websites magically stopped working (though actually your browser was being screwed around with) - today that doesn't happen so much.

      Short of the major AV vendors drastically upping their game in very short order (difficult - heuristics scanning is the obvious thing to look at but it's tantamount to the halting problem), I can't really see this situation improving much.

  5. whitelist by deusmetallum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Run a program that only allows whitelisted applications, and block all removable media. It's the only way you can be absolutely certain there is nothing running on your network that shouldn't be there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelist#Application_whitelists

  6. educate by orange47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    teach all the workers about security. disable autorun on all machines. dont let them run as admins. use noscript and adblock and foxit (or similar). update windows and AV regularly...

  7. block some email attachments and facebook by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    where i work we've been blocking a long list of email attachments like exe's and others. few years ago we also started blocking facebook.

      i set it up years ago and don't remember myself. we're all windows and have never been zombified. you can buy all the firewalls you want, but in the end it's still idiots clicking on everything in every email and every link they get sent over facebook and twitter

    1. Re:block some email attachments and facebook by magamiako1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A properly implemented firewall solution would guard against all of these things, as a properly implemented solution will also filter layer 7.

  8. XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me guess, all the computers are using xp. I work at a computer repair depot and i see alot of this on XP computers and rarely on vista/Windows 7 with uac turned on *sure its a pain but once everything is installed the user should never even see uac pop up. But i would guess if anything the computers are out of date for their OS patchs

  9. In an ideal world... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You'd be running a lot fewer XP boxes, and much, much meaner firewall rules. In practice, of course, users crying about how they "need" to "get their work done" generally prevents this.

    That being so, there are a few things to do: At present, our good buddies at Adobe are among the most popular and exciting vectors for infection. Where possible, ensure that neither Flash, nor shockwave, nor Acrobat are installed. Where not possible, make sure that they are kept up to date. Yes, this means updating all the bloody time and WSUS won't help(useful tip, with some poking around, you can find a utility from adobe, an .exe that, when run, removes all versions of flash, they hide it; but it lurks in the bowels of their site somewhere. You can also find .msi flash installers. Set up a network share, readable by all your administered machines, writeable only by admins, containing that utility, and the .msi for the latest flash player. Every time adobe updates, download the newer .msi, and run a script on all your administered PCs that runs the flash remover, and then msiexecs the newest flash MSI. It's a pain in the ass; but it will save you from some flash exploits). Updates for all other plugins you are using, plus OS components, should of course be adhered to with the same regularity.

    Assuming that user pushback isn't excessive, stripping executables and .zips from emails will also save you from some common vectors of stupidity.

    1. Re:In an ideal world... by jscott · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the K-12 district for which I work, there have ~600 staff (teachers/non-teachers), ~7800 student users and about 3000 workstations + notebooks. We're a Windows (XP for educational software product requirements) shop and run AD. In the past two years we've reigned in administrative users [even I, the sysadmin, run as a limited user on my workstation] and implemented a fairly detailed SRP White Listing. These two changes alone greatly reduced not only issues with crap-ware infections, but greatly reduced technician support time requirements.

      The vast majority of our users [excluding the students who can no longer run proxy software] Do. Not. Fucking. Hate. Us. You would be surprised how happy people are when their computers "just work" and don't require cleaning/futzing every couple weeks.

      I /cannot/ recommend enough budgeting time to investigate what SRP can do for your network.

      --
      signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
  10. Is it really necessary to ask? by magamiako1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really depends on the size of the companies and the resources they're willing to spend on proper security. You should do a cost analysis of the downtime, not to mention the IT time required to fix the ecosystem. You can do it in waves, and some changes will be more well received than others.

    #1. Don't allow users to be Admins of their own machines. I know in this day and age it's harder to push this one on people, but the ultimate reality is that if the user can't infect the system then they aren't going to get very far.

    #2. Managed, host-based firewalls on each of the machines that have rules for incoming and outgoing. This can be any number of centrally managed tools. if you're on XP, your best solution is likely something from say Symantec, Mcafee, or whichever company you want to use. I know with SEP you can manage the firewall portions and prevent worms from auto spreading.

    #3. Transparent, Layer 7 filtering at the network edge. Whether you want to use a proxy or a firewall for this is up to you. Juniper makes some pretty nice layer 7 devices for this purpose.

    #4. NAC/NAP. Again, useful technologies--prevent systems from communicating on the network that don't register as having proper updates or AV settings.

    These are just some basics, there's probably something entirely different based on the specific method these worms are using to spread. Perhaps a centrally managed website policy that locks systems down a bit more is all that's needed? Maybe keeping things more up-to-date, such as rolling out Windows 7 desktops with IE8?

  11. Suggestions by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few suggestions from my experience as a technician:

    • Keep vulnerable programs off of your base image. We saw infections go down dramatically after removing Java and replacing Adobe Acrobat Reader with something else.
    • Uninstall Internet Explorer if you can. Unless you're running Window 7, the easiest way to "uninstall" it is change the permissions on iexplore.exe to Deny for the Everyone account.
    • Lock down computers as much as you can with Group Policy, especially if you have a Windows Server infrastructure.
    • If you can, deploy Windows Steady State if you're using XP or purchase Faronics DeepFreeze. They're both ways of preventing permanent changes to your base image (installation of programs, modification of files) by users. If a Frozen machine gets infected, reboot it.
    • Don't license McAfee. It's worthless.
    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  12. Simple by rindeee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am over Cyber Security for a 36k seat enterprise. We've had no infections...period (and yes, we do have monitoring in place to catch behavioral anomalies that indicate zero-day, etc.). Here are the "must do's": 1. Block social networking sites. Need convincing? Here. http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=facebook.com/ or http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=myspace.com/ or http://google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=twitter.com/ 2. Block porn sites. All of them. Use keywords, IP/FQDN blacklists, adaptive/reputation blocking (Trusted Source type technology) 3. Use a managed AV/AM/HIPS solution such as McAfee ePO/AVE/HIPS/etc. if you can afford it. A good HIPS that does both network and application blocking is essential. 4. Exhaustively scan e-mail for content, attachments and (most of all) embedded URLs. 5. Finally, have a good dashboard. We rolled our own using Cacti, Nagios, Drupal and some simple Java, CSS and PHP. You need to be able to visualize things in as close to real time as is possible. Once you've established 'normal', you can spot 'abnormal' visually long before many automated analysis engines will alert you. This allows you to catch the things that may otherwise slip through the cracks. This doesn't have to be expensive (well, except for #3, it's expensive). You can scale a Linux based solution with entirely open source tools large enough to cover thousands of concurent users.

  13. The new meme "Terry Childs approach" by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the only way to secure the system- is don't let anyone into the system

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  14. Filtering by lord_rotorooter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you have a Cisco ASA 5510 or higher you can purchase the botnet filter for roughly $320 a year. Then enable the filter on your internal interface to block any outbound traffic going to the known botnet IP ranges. I would also recommend blocking unnecessary outbound ports and limiting necessary ports to specific machines (ex. Port 25 mail server only outbound). I would also look at setting up a proxy server such as SQUID proxy. I would do mime filtering on untrusted web traffic and perhaps using dansguardian for prebuilt whitelist/blacklisting. At my workplace I am fortunate enough to be allowed to do a default deny on the entire internet, only white-listing work related sites (of course I work at a bank). Antivirus should be considered a secondary defense in this day and age. You really need to look at getting an IPS device for your network and then perhaps an aggregated log server if you haven't already. These last two recommendations will cost some money. So short term I would focus on outbound firewall filtering and a proxy server.

  15. Sandboxing and VM's in our future ? by zuki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is more of a question than anything, as I find this to be a fascinating topic, but have little experience in managing corporate networks.

    At what point does it make sense to have your users having to run all that they do on a virtual machine, which if anything gets compromised can just be rolled back without too much fuss?

    Also, does it make sense to move a lot of what people do to some sort of hosted app infrastructure (private cloud for example) where the lockdown can occur in an easier and more granular manner as all of the apps are managed by IT only, or is this just a pipe dream that's at least another 10 years away?

    Still, in the end it all has to do with your users not practicing safe browsing, double-clicking on attachments that they did not expect, and the likes.

    I do like fuzzyfuzzyfungus, magamiako1 and Z34107's suggestions very much, seems fairly practical yet transparent to the users. (wish I had mod points for you guys, but not today!)

    But regardless, I guess in some sense any of these solutions seem like they are going to be quite costly and labor-intensive, from a business owner's perspective should those long-term costs not be taken into account when comparing them to deploying a network of machines running Linux or OS-X (and Windows apps inside a VM on those)? Does this all have to do with many corporate apps only working in a Windows network, and with legacy code not being able to be migrated away from a Microsoft-centric platform?

    Sorry for sounding naive, but this is not my area of expertise...

  16. Block outbound SMTP by pushf+popf · · Score: 4, Informative
    • Block all outbound (to the internet) connections to any ports except 443 and 80 from any machines that don't have a legitimate business need. (This won't help you much but will save the rest of us when you do get hit)
    • Block all incoming email that isn't plain text.
    • Require authentication on your outbound mail server
    • Install a filtering web proxy and block everything except plain HTML and images. (this actually isn't foolproof, since there are actually some image rendering vulnerabilities).


      • Your users will be really pissed off but the infection rate will be way down.
    1. Re:Block outbound SMTP by ejtttje · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either you read all your spam, or you talk to 12 year olds a lot. In my world, if someone takes the time to add formatting to an email, it's usually for good reason and makes it more readable (e.g. lists, bold/italics, code snippets with syntax hilighting, block quotes that can still re-wrap based on window width and don't screw up when you reply...)

      If old curmudgeons would get off their plain-text bandwagon we could standardize encrypted email like S/MIME.

  17. Lots of tools but where's the intelligence? by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows isn't going away, Linux and OSX aren't the cure-alls either.

    I've seen lots of things tried, locking down the desktop even to the point that Active-X controls couldn't be installed by an end-user. Still, with any XP or Windows 2000 system we had, if you hooked it to the net without some AV or patching applied within 30 minutes you'd have some virus or malware on it. That was on the company Intranet.

    I think what needs to happen is that network management tools need to start modeling traffic behavior and start watching for abnormal patterns and requests, likewise the Internet is wide open but there's only certain destinations that you really need to go when at work. IPS goes so far but really you need to start identifying traffic patterns and abnormalities in those patterns. Not just for this kind of exploit but for changes in system behavior as well.

    Yes, Port 80 blocks aren't effective, but where is the traffic going? If it's going to Romania or some other place, why is it going there? If your users go to Google, Slashdot and other well known sites, why all of a sudden are they going to ISPs that are known to host botnet controllers?

    I think admins and the industry have put too much emphasis on just fixing the O/S and as Windows holes get filled, there will still be millions of XP systems out there to exploit. A lot of this will start to move to the OSX/Linux community as well, it's just a matter of time because those markets will become victims of their own success. Hackers like a challenge and trust me they'll figure a way out to infect OSX and then the malware companies will start rolling out more products to "protect" those systems as well.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  18. The real way to be sure by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I say we take off and nuke the entire [system] from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.