What is Digg?59 Comments
- MCA2142, on 04/22/2009, -0/+30Botnet is a network of infected computers achieving a unified task without the knowledge of its users.
If you get infected with a some spyware or virus that's part of a botnet architecture, your system will start to crunch data for this unknown purpose without you knowing that it's there. It will do that in unison with thousands of PCs around the world.
It slows down your PC, but speeds up the botnet's agenda.
Think of it like "folding @ home" or "SETI @ home" but for a malicious cause. - fandyllic, on 04/22/2009, -6/+22#5 Too many people use MS Windows.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -2/+17This is how Skynet is born
- MCA2142, on 04/22/2009, -1/+10When you find the "reply" button, we can talk.
Until(one L) then, STFU. - Forgorin, on 04/22/2009, -1/+10Nice answer.
- CoreyTamas, on 04/22/2009, -1/+101) Which is why you should try to make the OS secure in the first place.
2) Which is why you should try to make the OS secure in the first place.
3) Which is why you should try to make the OS secure in the first place.
4) Which is why you should try to make the OS secure in the first place. - ukblacknight, on 04/22/2009, -0/+8I'm pretty sure they don't care about annoying people, all they're thinking about is £ / $ / €
- cloudberries, on 04/22/2009, -1/+8It's like a series of tubes, but instead of a truck, it's a transformer in disguise
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -2/+8"Im using IE"
This is where i stopped reading. - CoreyTamas, on 04/22/2009, -0/+6The idea that Windows is easiest to hijack simply because it's got the biggest marketshare is a complete fallacy. If an OS is easy to hack, then hackers will pay attention to it regardless of marketshare.
- cloudberries, on 04/22/2009, -3/+7*Thank you windows, for being so popular
- enantiodromia, on 04/22/2009, -2/+6i don't get it, are you saying only Windows can do more than browse the web?
- jivatmanx, on 04/22/2009, -1/+5Unix/Linux was built to be a secure, multi-user, networked system, from the very beginning. It doesn't let you run as administrator. It had protected ram almost from the beginning.
Windows was built as a consumer, single-user system, without networking much in mind.
Granted, it's partially the fault of programmers that they write incredible insecure aps for windows, but windows is to blame for creating a culture where everyone runs as administrator, and it's gotten so bad that many programs and games won't even run unless you're administrator, even after they're installed. I know Vista UAC is trying to solve this problem, but it's kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
In addition, the usage of repositories by it's nature protects against downloading dubious programs, especially considering most of the aps are FOSS and reviewed by the distro community. - CoreyTamas, on 04/22/2009, -2/+6I'm sure you think this is a popularity contest, but think a little past the sarcasm for a moment: For Mac or Linux to be the most-hacked, they'd would have to be more than popular: They'd have to also be insecure. Windows isn't hacked because it's beloved by the masses. Windows is hacked because it's easy to hack Windows.
- ssjtoma, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3wish I knew what you talking about....
- uberkling, on 04/22/2009, -5/+81) Computer illiterate morons aren't banned from the internet.
2) Computer illiterate morons aren't banned from the internet.
3) Computer illiterate morons aren't banned from the internet.
4) Computer illiterate morons aren't banned from the internet. - phpirate, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4something to do with al gore, robots, lasers, and tubes.
- Myztry, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3UAC is not fine. "A program is trying to access your computer" says nothing. Not even to competent users. It may as well say, "Pick a button - any button"
Zone Alarm (and the like) at least tell the user what the application is trying to do, allowing for an informed decision. - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3My password is Enter.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4You do know IE6 is YEARS ago right? We're on IE8 now...
- ukblacknight, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4@LilRabbitFooFoo
Maybe he's at work? Many corporate environments still cling onto IE6. At least I hope that's his excuse, otherwise he has none :P - albinoMithos, on 04/22/2009, -2/+5*#5 Too many people don't know how to use MS Windows properly.
- whytey, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2How are those links even real domains wtf?!
- downneck, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2blah blah blah blah nonsense blah blah blah security blah blah blah
none of this ***** in any way increases microsoft's ability to profit from poorly educated computer users and, as such, doesn't even exist in their eyes.
all great ideas that never will see the light of day - Myztry, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2Microsoft could solve the Corporate security issue with the ability to specify a whitelist trust provider for a domain. But they are trying to sell Forefront Security into that market. They divulged the exploit conficker uses around the same time as Forefront went to market...
Microsoft is moving along the right lines with the .NET platform. They could move the whole .NET software catalog onto a secure OS (be it their own, or someone elses) simply by porting the .NET runtime. Everthing from Win32 down is a security write-off.
IML as used by .NET can also be ported to other architectures. The x86 (and AMD64 by inclusion) is ancient, and is in need of replacing. Psuedo opcodes could allow for that. Applications can be denied Supervisor opcodes or even function calls as they must be produced by the JIT compiler. Indeed optimised opcode sets could be used to reduce memory footprints and increase speed.
Instead of having anti-viruses find malicious code, have IML JIT compilers that refuse to produce it and inject security measures under a proper I/O segregated platform architecture. - SteveMax, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2The problem isn't allowing you to run as root. The problem is that Windows encourages you to run as a "privileged user", who can do basically everything on the computer, while on most Linux distros you run as a 100% limited user; and you need a different password to run the dangerous stuff. I remember some distros that used a red background with bombs on it when you logged to X as root, while XP defaults to give you a user with all root privileges.
IMHO, the problems with UAC are:
1) It got a lot of bad press before Vista went live, so its image was trashed even before people used it
2) It could be more informative, giving you the exact details of what function in what file is trying to do what.
3) it should require a different password, not the user's; and that password should have length and complexity requirements. Psychologically, this would make it clearer that it is not one to be entered lightly, so the users would think twice before using it. Ubuntu and OS X are guilty on this point too, since they disable the root account and have sudo ask for the users' password. - tectonix, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2skynet in beta.
- Myztry, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1Youth? I first learnt to program machine code 27 years ago at the age of 12. Not my fault if Visual Studio users have no idea about some of the base concepts...
The youth today and their prefab software environments... - mackenai, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3Well it crashed mine, fully patched IE6!
Give up and use Firefox (or Chrome). - mrBitch, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2I weep for our youth...
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2"It doesn't let you run as administrator"
sudo bash
passwd
quit
bash --login
sorry but being an avid Linux user I can't possibly support such ignorance.
Vista UAC Is just fine - the problem is the users, not the UAC. The same happens for Linux though, as many distros DO allow root login. (Ubuntu is one of the few that don't by default.) Just because it's not being exploited doesn't mean it can't, but Linux probably isn't a prime target (minus server machines, but you don't attack server and home machines the same ways anyway.)
I guess in the same way, attacking linux users is harder becuase a good majority of them at least know the basics of not-getting-malware-ology - StankInTheBank, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1#1 It hasn't occurred to anyone to develop a fully sandboxed OS.
- ukblacknight, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2How would they fight the virus by downloading and installing patches/AV updates if they're offline? It's the responsibility of the users, not the ISPs.
I bet there are some out there who don't even know their machines are infected, they think that their machine is running slow because "it's running out of memory because it's full of music". - jemka, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2Security is important, but it's not yet imperative for daily users or their applications. Eventually, it will be.
- crossmr, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1This doesn't need to be hard.. ISPs just have to start growing some testicles and cutting off customers that are clearly infected by a virus. Most viruses have known signatures for behaviour. If customers won't patch their machines, won't run a virus scan, cut them off until they do.
If an ISP refuses to do it, the other ISPs have to stop routing their traffic. Get a couple big ISPs on board the agreement and every one else will fall in line or risk segmenting the internet. - TheTallest, on 04/22/2009, -3/+4It isn't just Windows anyway, PSYB0T attacks Linux based routers.
- Natnie, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3Someone's gonna be a target; it comes with the territory of being the most used.
- topcat5, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1It isn't easy to hack computers. It is easy to hack the Window OS that operates on computers. This isn't an issue on non-Windows systems.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1 Only if the user uses a stupid password like "Password."
- jivatmanx, on 04/22/2009, -13/+14Thank you windows, for ruining the internet.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Correct! Each 100 drones attracts $200 US (give or take)
And the information on them, more so! (All hail the nation ID card) - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3Considering how many WEB SERVERS are Linux and how so few of them are hacked (some are) you would have to wonder. The difference is webservers tell everyone "Here! Over here! but windows computers are sitting behind a firewall and DHCP servers trying to hide.
Linux then is popular, more than you can acknowledge by pure logic.. - Chriswifvanilla, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3http://lmgtfy.com/?q=whats+a+botnet%3F
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1On its own? No, it can't
- mkrygeri, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1You think people hate Vista? Wait till they try Windows 7 Sandbox edition.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1 That's true.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1 No it's not..Four years ago I moved to linux and I'm happy with it.
- antdude, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1And humans.
- jemka, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1@CoreyTamas,
Considering the speed in which both linux and OSX are pwnd by hackers in contests tells me that you're wrong. The sheer mass of windows users makes hacking linux and OSX unprofitable. Also, I would argue that Windows itself isn't easy to hack, rather exploiting of the programs on windows is the issue. Since windows is more popular, more programs, more hacking.
@DestroyFascism,
Users don't use WEB SERVERS. They use personal computers with personal applications that aren't always written with security in mind. You can't compare personal computers running widows to WEB SERVERS running linux. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is