Cutting edge work - MS Vista Virus

[dejo]

I think what some people do not realize when everyone talks about market share, is that with an increase in this their would surely be an increase in viruses written for OSX, as it stands now if these hackers are doing it for bragging rights, they desire to inflict as many machines as possible. Is OSX that secure or is it that hackers just have not felt like wasting their time on us yet? I'm under the impression that OSX could be entered easily and it could become dangerous since this is something developers have not needed to really worry about. Anyone got any hard info on this topic?

Well, the market share for OS X is higher than for Vista and yet Vista already has people writing viruses for it. Further proof the 'security through obscurity' argument is bogus.

 

[mkrishnan]

I'm positive they could do it if they wanted. But the point is to
1) break into new territory (i.e. "#1 Vista Virus") or
2) cause maximum damage

Most are option 2, which explains why there would be lack of viruses for Mac OS X. There just aren't enough of us to matter. (Security issues aside)

Yeah, but a counter-example would be that there are people out there creating Bluetooth viruses to act on Symbian phones... I mean if that market grabs people's attention, I wonder why there aren't more people trying to be the first to virus up OS X. All those articles saying OS X has never had a virus must be taunting to them.

I think another piece is platform hatred. That doesn't explain why Cabir came into being (unless people really hate Nokia?), but I think MS is a major target of viruses in part because people in the hacker community really hate them more than they hate anyone else in the software industry.

 

[MBHockey]

Nothing is uncrackable, just varying levels of difficulty in exploiting it.

 

[masterapple04]

I still wonder when M$ is going to realize that they have to do the same thing with Windows that Apple did with the Mac OS. That is, start from scratch. At this point, I think their only hope of getting ahead of the virus writers is to scrap 20+ years of putting new versions of Windows on top of old versions of Windows, and begin anew. Not that I really care about M$, but I really can't stand listening to people bash Macs when Windows is so awful.

 

[rainman::|:|]

I am so goddamn sick of this whole idea that OS X is secure because no one wants to write viruses for it. That's such total ******** it's not even funny. just go do some searching, you'll find forums full of people that would LOVE to get a virus running on OS X... hackers have been trying for years now. I'm not saying X is unhackable, but it's seriously a TON harder, so michaelrjohnson, your logic doesn't hold up. We have a simple cause an effect: No viruses because it's a secure OS. You don't need to look any harder for an explanation of why it works.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Go Danom!!!

Windows is such a house of cards, its exploitation is inevitable - M$ was touting the same line about WinXP: "This is *the* secure Windows."

The beauty of Monad is that it opens up a whole new venue for the viruses that rely on, for lack of a better term, viral marketing (you know, "!!!See Venus Williams Naked!!!" emails and the like). It's like the new ActiveX or Visual Basic: just lying there, waiting for the right code to cause system chaos. Whether or not Monad is enabled by default when Vista is finally on the market to me almost seems irrelevant: if M$ is true to form, somewhere in the OS something will still require its use, or it will be something that can be enabled with very few clicks of the mouse.

That's the real beauty of Windows: it's far easier to use people's natural gullibility against them. I agree with the person above who talks about OS X and virii - it may also be inevitable, but the truth is that the OS is a lot harder nut to crack, not that people aren't trying.

[Edit]:

I still wonder when M$ is going to realize that they have to do the same thing with Windows that Apple did with the Mac OS. That is, start from scratch...

Ahhh, but there goes M$'s precious "backwards compatibility" - they know they've been backed into a corner: the second people need to run "Windows Classic" on top of an all new OS, or simply have to re-buy software, they'll realize they have a choice in computing. I know so many people who use Windows because, "it's all I have or can afford" or "it came with the computer" or "yeah, but I already have all the programs for it." - which is an obstacle to "switchers" and all the more important that Apple develop an Office-killing suite of its own.

 

[0098386]

before i split my sides laughing i think i heard somewhere, though probably wrong, that Vista is having all the security and GUI in the final version only

or did i hear wrong?

this is good fodder for switching. a whole year before its release and its already taking on viruses. ... why cant MS just make a solid, reliable, safe OS? i mean is it that hard for these developers? if OS X can do it???

 

[beatle888]

Well, the market share for OS X is higher than for Vista and yet Vista already has people writing viruses for it. Further proof the 'security through obscurity' argument is bogus.

your joking right? it IS windows dont forget...its just the latest release so motive stirred by size of user base is still relevant.

 

[rendezvouscp]

At least they're just proof-of-concept viruses, and not full fledged viruses ready to take on any developer's machine. However, just the fact that they're poc viruses (he, I like that term) is not good for Microsoft.

Is anyone actually expecting a more secure Windows? I was a bit because of their supposed permission features, but we'll see.
-Chase

 

[superbovine]

I am so goddamn sick of this whole idea that OS X is secure because no one wants to write viruses for it. That's such total ******** it's not even funny. just go do some searching, you'll find forums full of people that would LOVE to get a virus running on OS X... hackers have been trying for years now. I'm not saying X is unhackable, but it's seriously a TON harder, so michaelrjohnson, your logic doesn't hold up. We have a simple cause an effect: No viruses because it's a secure OS. You don't need to look any harder for an explanation of why it works.

http://www.users.muohio.edu/hoffmang/4.htm

One of the favorite things that a Mac User likes to brag about is how much less can affect a Mac. This is for several reasons. First of all, they do in fact get viruses. They are much harder to cure, because of this odd sense of Mac elitism which leads to much more Macs percentage -wise without protection. They are also just as suseptable to most spyware as Windows users. Most viruses don't get writen for Mac for the simple reason that you want to annoy more people you hack Windows. They also filled in a lot of holes by using Open BSD, a Unix Dirivative that was famous for having only 4 root exploits (meaning someone from outside the system hacked it over the internet and got full access), until last year. Now there are in fact Unix, Linux and BSD Viruses too. Open BSD is an operating system that is open source (meaning that you can not only view and edit the source code, but under BSD's special licence if you were to use it in, say, your operating system, you only need to tell people, not make it free). It is worked on, perfectedd, and published by the Free Source Community and is considered to be the safest OS.

I would say the spyware is somewhat debatable because root access is hard to gain.

 

[shadowmoses]

for the first time i feel sympathy for microsodt, i mean they cant even get there new OS out the door without viruses...

And "Vista" what kind of a name is Vista for an OS they should have just gone back to windows 2007 or something....

ShadOW

 

[rockthecasbah]

for the first time i feel sympathy for microsodt, i mean they cant even get there new OS out the door without viruses...

And "Vista" what kind of a name is Vista for an OS they should have just gone back to windows 2007 or something....

ShadOW

no, it should go back to the bowels of hell which it spawned from

 

[taeclee99]

Well this is what our good friend Paul Thurott has to say about the first Vista virus:

From www.internet-nexus.com

"Last week's widely reported "Windows Vista virus" was not, in fact, a virus that targets Windows Vista at all, but was instead a virus that targets the Microsoft Scripting Host (MSH; codenamed Monad), an object-oriented, .NET-based command line environment. And while MSH may be installable in Windows Vista Beta 1, the environment does not come with Beta 1 and will not appear in future betas or the final release, Microsoft says. Furthermore, the new Windows Vista security subsystem isn't even enabled in Beta 1.

Thus, there's no Windows Vista virus. Sorry, conspiracy fans.

While I'm sure the gleeful Mac fanboy sites that ate up the "Vista virus" stories will be equally expedient in covering the truth, I have to wonder more about the mainstream media, which was equally ravenous about covering this story. Heck, even F-Secure, a widely-trusted security company, covered the alleged virus. There's no Windows Vista virus out there, folks. Anyone care to write about it?"

 

[greatdevourer]

By the end of 2005, they promise one virus per person. You can name your own. They'll be like pets.

I'll call mine Gary

I'm curious as to why there aren't. I know mac os x is extremely secure, but, i think if they _really_ wanted to, surely hackers could figure out something.

Maybe they just really hate microsoft? and all use PowerBooks...hehe

Trust me. They've tried all they can. The best they can do (aside from a few RATs, which don't really count) is summat that requires the user to input an Admin password every time it trys to do summat

 

[AoWolf]

Well this is what our good friend Paul Thurott has to say about the first Vista virus:

From www.internet-nexus.com

"Last week's widely reported "Windows Vista virus" was not, in fact, a virus that targets Windows Vista at all, but was instead a virus that targets the Microsoft Scripting Host (MSH; codenamed Monad), an object-oriented, .NET-based command line environment. And while MSH may be installable in Windows Vista Beta 1, the environment does not come with Beta 1 and will not appear in future betas or the final release, Microsoft says. Furthermore, the new Windows Vista security subsystem isn't even enabled in Beta 1.

Thus, there's no Windows Vista virus. Sorry, conspiracy fans.

While I'm sure the gleeful Mac fanboy sites that ate up the "Vista virus" stories will be equally expedient in covering the truth, I have to wonder more about the mainstream media, which was equally ravenous about covering this story. Heck, even F-Secure, a widely-trusted security company, covered the alleged virus. There's no Windows Vista virus out there, folks. Anyone care to write about it?"

What is with this guy. Did Steve steal his gf or something. Getting people to download something is very is easy to do this a big threat to windows.

 

[dotdotdot]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I'm sure that everyone realizes that there is no virus for Vista, right?

The virus was written for a new technology that Microsoft was creating to replace the command line in favor of a more Unix-like command typing interface. This person wrote a malicious script for it.

However, it was unclear wether or not Microsoft would include this technology in Vista. The technology was NOT in Beta 1. Microsoft recently said it would not be in the final version of Vista, and instead delayed until the server version comes out in 2007. The server version of Vista is still codenamed "Longhorn," and will likely be called Windows Server 2007, to continue the trend started by Windows 2000 Server, and continued by Windows Server 2003.

When released in "Longhorn" Server 2007, it will be so different than what Microsoft said that this virus won't apply.

 

[amin]

I'm really surprised there aren't some prevalent, nasty Mac viruses. From the posts I see around on non-Mac sites, there is plenty of anti-Mac sentiment out there to motivate the creation of such viruses. I simply don't believe it would be that hard to do, and it seems that dealing the first huge blow to the Mac sector would also be worth some "bragging rights." Why hasn't it happened yet?