Don't be fooled into believing that your pc is secure, even with the most expensive or best known security products. This recent article http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1445&tag=nl.e539 gives an indication of how vulnerable anti-virus products are. I know the original posters problem wasn't due to a virus but it's an indication of what you're up against (I'm glad I don't pay for my antivirus software - AVG looks pretty good compared to the big boys).
PS. I learned another lesson this week. I thought my money was protected against fraud when paying using Paypal - not so: I bought an item on eBay recently (fortunately under a tenner). The item wasn't delivered and the seller ignored my e-mails, and presumably ignored Paypals communications. This is an extract from the Resolution of Buyer Complaint I recieved from Paypal : "After careful review, we have concluded our investigation of the Buyer Complaint described below.
We have decided in your favour, however, we were unable to recover any funds from the seller's account. As stated in the PayPal User Agreement, recovery of funds associated with a Buyer Complaint cannot be guaranteed.
Please know that we will make our best effort to recover the funds in question if they become available in the seller's account in the future, and will take appropriate action against the seller. Such action may include issuing a warning, a temporary restriction, or terminating the account. Keep in mind that PayPal uses a number of factors, including member complaints, to determine when to take action. Due to privacy laws, we cannot discuss the details of any action taken. We hope you understand our policy and that it reassures you that you are safe using PayPal. "
Actually it doesn't reassure me at all. I lost my money.
C'est la vie, or more realistically, shit happens.
Speaking yesterday to someone who knows about these things, it's reckoned that an unprotected Windows XP PC, connected to the interweb, will be rendered un-usable within 90 minutes.
Speaking yesterday to someone who knows about these things, it's reckoned that an unprotected Windows XP PC, connected to the interweb, will be rendered un-usable within 90 minutes.
I feel an experiment coming on.
Ooo, I love experiments like this . Please keep us posted, Kev. Make sure it's a PC that you've never used to access sensitive data eg. banking though.
My money says it'll take a lot longer than 90 minutes too. If you want to speed the process up you could try it with an Apple Mac instead...
...it'll take a lot longer than 90 minutes too. If you want to speed the process up you could try it with an Apple Mac instead...
Evidently you haven't used one then. I have been using Macs for 14 years, many of which were entirely unprotected (no A-V, no firewall...) and have never knowingly been affected by a virus or malware...
they are even good for combating aggressive alien civilisations; at least Will Smith did it in Independence Day...
I haven't used Macs much I confess, though that's just my personal preference. Most people who use them rave about them. I just could never get along with them.
I would challenge the perception (or should that be myth) that Macs are somehow inherently more secure than PCs for example. IMHO a properly patched and protected Windows XP PC running a firewall and AV software would be roughly equal to a similarly spec'd Mac. It may possibly be a little better if this is any indication.
Yes, it's very handy to be able to bring down even the most advanced alien civilisations using nothing but a simple laptop. Will Smith - the new MacGyver!!
> I would challenge the perception [...] that Macs are somehow inherently more secure than PCs
The thing is that almost all viruses are written for a PC platform; an issue of numbers of installed units.
Plus the fact that MS does seem to have a history of rather poor security in in OS designs.
And, no, I don't use a Mac. The only Mac I own is a very ancient Mac SE with a 68k processor and a massive 20MB HDD... I think it still goes 'ping' if I turn it on...
Mac OSX is built on a Unix kernel; as such it could be made to be more secure than the average pc IMO. Plus they ship with a fairly reasonable firewall software included in the operating system. Viruses aren't generally written for mac's either (diminishing return for the few users out there). But you can get Mac anti-virus software (Virex which became part of McAfee I think) if you want to be extra cautious.
My machines at home run either Mac or Linux. I haven't had a problem with either. However, on a recent business trip to the UK I rented self-catering accommodation and it included a PC that had no antivirus protection. As I mentioned above, the PC was configured to restore itself to a default image on startup, so anything downloaded including viruses and malware were automatically deleted. However, it gave me the insight of just how much at risk the pc user is; after a few hours of being on the net, the system had been hit by agressive malware that was running dozens of processes on the cpu and pulling up all sorts of websites advertising bogus malware protection.
If I wanted a more secure system I think I'd switch to OpenBSD. But I don't have the time or the inclination to learn how to use it!
Mac OSX is built on a Unix kernel; as such it could be made to be more secure than the average pc IMO.
Agreed, Unix is a much more secure system than Windows or Mac OSX. However the vast majority of vulnerabilities come from the layers on top of the kernel rather than the kernel itself. Things like Internet Explorer, Outlook, Media Player, etc in Windows, and Safari, Quicktime, iTunes, etc for Macs are the source of most security issues.
I think Apple is a victim of its own success to some extent. The success of the iPod and iPhone results in development resources being diverted from resolving operating system issues to the much more sexy and lucrative iPhone and iPod projects. Culturally they're different to Microsoft too, relying strongly on image and sex appeal to sell products. I think this is the reason they appear to regard security vulnerabilities as a potential PR disaster rather than something they need to inform their users of and release patches asap. So much so that Apple now leads Microsoft in the number of unpatched vulnerabilities and the length of time it takes to resolve them. And trends show that Apple is getting worse whereas Microsoft is stable. Some links here and here.
In a recent hacking competition a MacBook Air running a fully patched version of Leopard was the first fall. Machines used in the competition were running OS X, Vista and Linux. It took less than two minutes to crack the MacBook.
I'll stop now 'cause I'm beginning to sound like Microsoft fanboy - I'm not. I curse Windows as much as the next man. And I don't hate Apple either, just not my cup of tea, that's all.
John, which distros/versions of Linux do you use at home. I've tried a few but never been very satisfied with any, despite really wanting to be. Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn) is the closest I've found to be suitable for my purposes but media playback is not supported as well as with Windows even after doing all the hacks you need to play MP3, DVDs, DivX, etc. Also things like photo and text editing is quite limited. I use vi at work, but only because I have no choice. I tried Fedora 9 recently and was back to Windows within a week. I never saw my CPU usage drop below 50% at any time!
. Please keep us posted, Kev. Make sure it's a PC that you've never used to access sensitive data eg. banking though.
And I don't hate Apple either, just not my cup of tea, that's all. 
