anyone know any of these file names?

[jscheuer1]

In at least one case, those are stats from anti-virus companies that want to scare people. If you read a little:

The longstanding Zafi-D worm accounts for more than a quarter of all viruses reported to Sophos so far this year. Dominating the top of the monthly virus charts for the first four months, this Hungarian worm uses the guise of a Christmas greeting to trick users into opening its infected attachment.

Ho, Ho, Ho . . . Now, that's gonna take more than 12 or 15 minutes to infect, never on my system. That's even without any updates or anti-virus/anti-malware programs.

[Twey]

You still could get your XP CD slipstreamed so all the updates are already on there.

That's one solution. Another (the one I usually use) is to put all the updates and some anti-malware software on a USB drive and install them before connecting the machine to the internet.

In at least one case, those are stats from anti-virus companies that want to scare people.

SANS, however, is objective and professional.

Ho, Ho, Ho . . . Now, that's gonna take more than 12 or 15 minutes to infect, never on my system. That's even without any updates or anti-virus/anti-malware programs.

I believe the tests were done on PCs just left standing; that is to say, with no user interaction. Obviously a poor user can screw up a system pretty quickly; heck, who needs a virus? All you'd have to do is send 'em an email telling them they'll get free **** if they go into a command prompt and format c:.

[boxxertrumps]

If you want to have your computer boot up faster, go into msconfig*, the startup tab, and uncheck everything that doesn't have to do with your antivirus, video/audio drivers or wireless internet connection**.

* Start -> Run or OSkey+R then type "msconfig"
** assuming that's what you use.

[tech_support]

That's one solution. Another (the one I usually use) is to put all the updates and some anti-malware software on a USB drive and install them before connecting the machine to the internet.

How time consuming. And not really a solution if the user only has one computer. Also, avast doesn't have an option to do that.

I believe the tests were done on PCs just left standing; that is to say, with no user interaction. Obviously a poor user can screw up a system pretty quickly; heck, who needs a virus? All you'd have to do is send 'em an email telling them they'll get free **** if they go into a command prompt and format c:.

And they will tell you that they are getting a denied message.

I can't believe everyone's blaming Micro$oft/Windows for basically anything. It's all up to the end user. If he/she decides to visit crack, ****, and other stupid sites, obviously they'll get some sort of a virus.

This same thing applies to Linux. If Linux were more popular, and home users started to use it, virus makers/hackers will just send an e-mail saying "make your linux faster!" and point the link to some bash script.

I would think it'll be easier to hack Linux than Windows, actually. It's just that Windows is so much more popular, that the hackers will go for the biggest target.

Don't believe me?

Where do terrorists go if they want to plant a bomb. Middle of the desert? Or in the middle of a busy shopping center.

[Twey]

Covered this one a long time ago. Linux servers vastly outweigh their Windows counterparts, so Linux servers should get compromised more often than Windows by your reasoning. Strangely, this doesn't hold true

I would think it'll be easier to hack Linux than Windows, actually.

Why on Earth would you think that?

I can't believe everyone's blaming Micro$oft/Windows for basically anything. It's all up to the end user. If he/she decides to visit crack, ****, and other stupid sites, obviously they'll get some sort of a virus.

And as I've just said above, the tests were performed on unmanned machines: that is to say, no end-user intervention at all, just a machine, an internet connection, and the default setup. Not to say that Linux can't be compromised by the stupidity of the end user, we all know that's not true. The reasoning doesn't work in reverse though.

Also, how did this thread end up being an OS debate? o.@

[tech_support]

Why on Earth would you think that?

Windows offers Windows File Protection. If one file gets messed, they'd replace it. I tried to remove iexplorer.exe once, it didn't let me.

Linux however, one sudo then your system's basically gone. No automatic restoring of the files, basic system restoration etc. Not even a system recovery tool on the disc.

[jscheuer1]

Covered this one a long time ago. Linux servers vastly outweigh their Windows counterparts, so Linux servers should get compromised more often than Windows by your reasoning. Strangely, this doesn't hold true

Here you go with that server argument again. Servers are not PC's and the situations are not comparable even in that environment. It is fairly likely that proportionately more Windows users in both the server and the PC environment are less computer savvy to begin with. This completely skews the data that you are referring to. And I don't care what the number of installed OS's is in either environment. Hackers (the malicious variety) just have it in for MS. It's the company you love to hate. This is true even for the non-malicious hackers, and the public in general.

[tech_support]

And plus Linux was never meant for desktop PCs, and are still struggling to make the ideal desktop operation system. Windows on the other hand, was built for the desktop, not for the server.

[Twey]

Windows offers Windows File Protection. If one file gets messed, they'd replace it. I tried to remove iexplorer.exe once, it didn't let me.

Linux however, one sudo then your system's basically gone. No automatic restoring of the files, basic system restoration etc. Not even a system recovery tool on the disc.

The overall effect of this is to make it harder to accidentally destroy one's own system. In Linux, the permissions system functions in roughly the same way. However, it doesn't have much of a bearing on malicious users who know what they're doing and want to delete the files. There's no "system restore" utility because the package managers can handle that on their own.

Here you go with that server argument again. Servers are not PC's and the situations are not comparable even in that environment. It is fairly likely that proportionately more Windows users in both the server and the PC environment are less computer savvy to begin with. This completely skews the data that you are referring to. And I don't care what the number of installed OS's is in either environment. Hackers (the malicious variety) just have it in for MS. It's the company you love to hate. This is true even for the non-malicious hackers, and the public in general.

This is a nice hypothesis, but where is the data to back it up? Also, why are the situations not comparable? There is really little difference these days between a server and a PC other than the software it runs. Both tend to have roughly the same hardware, perhaps with a few specialisations in either direction.

And plus Linux was never meant for desktop PCs, and are still struggling to make the ideal desktop operation system. Windows on the other hand, was built for the desktop, not for the server.

Windows was built for the non-networked workstation. When Microsoft realised that TCP/IP networks were the next big thing, they yoinked a (now old) version of the BSD networking stack and stuck it in their OS so as to stand a chance of competing, but Windows has never been designed from the ground up to be networked like UNIX and Linux have. XP took a big step in the right direction here, and Vista even moreso, but it's still somewhat held back by its past and Microsoft's unwillingness to break backwards compatibility.

[jscheuer1]

Here you go with that server argument again. Servers are not PC's and the situations are not comparable even in that environment. It is fairly likely that proportionately more Windows users in both the server and the PC environment are less computer savvy to begin with. This completely skews the data that you are referring to. And I don't care what the number of installed OS's is in either environment. Hackers (the malicious variety) just have it in for MS. It's the company you love to hate. This is true even for the non-malicious hackers, and the public in general.

This is a nice hypothesis, but where is the data to back it up? Also, why are the situations not comparable? There is really little difference these days between a server and a PC other than the software it runs. Both tend to have roughly the same hardware, perhaps with a few specialisations in either direction.

There is no reliable data that I am aware of to support either position. Reports of attacks can be tailored by the reporting agency to suit their outlook and later skewed in interpretation by the reader to support any viewpoint. Figures don't lie, but you can lie with figures.

Face it, (evil hacker type) mammals just like going after Windows. And Windows owners are generally not as savvy as those people who take the trouble to learn other server and/or PC OS's.