J
Jamie
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
i have a 128D, whats it worth to you?Guy said:
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
T
Tom MacIntyre
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of the
operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
the PC world?
Tom
T
Tom MacIntyre
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
The big player is targetted...why target .0001% (probably less) of the
online population?
Do you actually believe that a virus can't be coded for a C 128?
Tom
N
NSM
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
| Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of the
| operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| the PC world?
And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class. It was
never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
N
| operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| the PC world?
And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class. It was
never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
N
J
James Sweet
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
NSM said:
NT was, people just tend not to configure it to be secure, most log in as
administrator, most also set it to auto login, lots of people install
software infested with spyware and viruses, the most secure OS's available
are insecure in the hands of a typical home user.
N
NSM
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
|
| | >
| > | >
| > | Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of the
| > | operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| > | the PC world?
| >
| > And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class. It
| was
| > never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
| >
| > N
| >
| >
|
| NT was, people just tend not to configure it to be secure, most log in as
| administrator, most also set it to auto login, lots of people install
| software infested with spyware and viruses, the most secure OS's available
| are insecure in the hands of a typical home user.
Wasn't NT based (somewhat) on Unix? What I like most is all the people who
install wireless networks then don't secure them!!
N
| | >
| > | >
| > | Most viruses are coded for MS, because MS is the most prolific of the
| > | operating systems. Why bother coding a virus to attack 1%, 5%, ?% of
| > | the PC world?
| >
| > And MS software catches and spreads viruses like a pre-school class. It
| was
| > never designed from the ground up with any sort of security.
| >
| > N
| >
| >
|
| NT was, people just tend not to configure it to be secure, most log in as
| administrator, most also set it to auto login, lots of people install
| software infested with spyware and viruses, the most secure OS's available
| are insecure in the hands of a typical home user.
Wasn't NT based (somewhat) on Unix? What I like most is all the people who
install wireless networks then don't secure them!!
N
W
Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Tom MacIntyre said:
Prolific?? Like, M$ is, well.. Nahh. Not prolific.
Why? Well, there *are* Linux viruses, if you didn't know.. Duh.
A Google search for Linux virus gives over 13 million hits! Duh!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Linux+virus&btnG=Google+Search
Maybe you should have this: (click on Linux on the left)
http://www.centralcommand.com/index.html
T
Tom MacIntyre
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
I'll direct you to my statement above... MOST viruses are coded for MS
(most, of course, neither implies nor states ALL)...DUH to you too.
Tom
J
James Sweet
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
NSM said:
In very loose terms, yes, but realistically it has very little directly in
common. One fault NT/2K/XP does have is that it's default configuration is
not particularly secure, but lock it down out of the box and the average
home user accustomed to 9x will be confused by the added complexity.
So true on the wireless thing, a few months ago I took my laptop along in a
car ride just for kicks, I found an unsecured wireless network every mile or
so going past suburbs and apartment complexes.
J
James Sweet
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
They have 95% of the market, if that's not prolific, what is?
Of course there *are* linux viruses, there's viruses for just about any OS
there is, but the vast majority of viruses are coded for Windows, followed
by those for MacOS, it's no coincidence that these are the two most commonly
used consumer OS's, everything else combined is just a tiny sliver of the
pie.
G
GEO [email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
A
Active8
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
What does this have to do with downloading a program that you think
is safe but isn't? Patches don't catch that. Bloodhound is an old
Norton scanner and they're talking about an MSIE exploit which is
not the same as downloading a malicious program.
G
GEO [email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
That was the exploit hidden in the page that started this thread (as
reported in al.comp.virus). Your comment was ' I run Antivir and I
detected nothing bad when I visited that link.', so I added what had
been reported to be in that page.
'Bloodhound.Exploit.21 is a heuristic detection for files that have
been designed to exploit the Microsoft Internet Explorer HTML Help
Control Local Zone Security Restriction Bypass Vulnerability (BID
11467). The vulnerability is still unpatched by Microsoft as of
December 25, 2004.'
Geo
A
Active8
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Ok. I don't run IE but I suppose updating AntiVir more often
wouldn't hurt.
<snip>
I'd read all that. Bloodhound is a scanner that goes back to the
days of Peter Norton. Semantec must really like the word and
probably groups certain exploits in that class. It detected my boot
sector program I wrote friggin' 10 yrs ago - Bloodhound TM.
K
keith
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
No, it was based on VMS and OS/2. It was supposed to be OS/2 version 3,
but M$ hired David Cutler from DEC with the promise that he'd do a VMS
knock-off. It fell *way* short of either. NT had nothing to do with *IX,
in any way, shape, or form.
Not surprising. I decided to not go wireless at home because I didn't
want another door to have to lock. I opened up the walls and ran CAT5
where I needed instead.
G
GEO [email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
No newer versions of any AV for my Win3.1 <G>
Any virus or worm comes so slow in my dialup conecction that I can
have a coffee while I wait.
Yes, I remember reading someone mentioning the long history of the
name in alt.comp.virus. Not a bad name, I guess. Better than
'chihuahua'. <g>
Geo
J
John Perry
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Watson said:
Isn't it funny how those Microsoft ideologs keep posting this nonsense!
Take the trouble to read a few of these URL's. You'll find that almost all
refer to security labs working to identify and close security holes, and
educational sites describing how to protect yourself from the vanishingly
few that have actually done harm.
Contrast that with a similar Google on "Windows virus", where almost all are
third-party vendors anouncing and trying to figure out how to defeat the
latest monster virus that's crashing corporate data systems everywhere.
Good advice, if you've got nothing better to do with $350.
Similar threads
