Why Free?

External Since: Jun 12, 2004 Posts: 335

JT wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:44:32 GMT, optikl <optikl.DeleteThis@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>JT wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The reality is that most virus DO exist because of flaws in MS code or MS
>>>lack of security in the OS model. Without the ActiveX flaws, 99% of all
>>>virus would not exist.
>>
>>What about Trojans and backdoors? Not all malware takes advantage of
>>ActiveX? What if you have ActiveX totally disabled but execute a program
>>you think, or have been told, is a game?
>
>
> Then you are not talking VIRUS anymore. Malware for sure. Fixing the
> security model even reduces the problem with trojans and backdoors. If the
> average user doesn't have access to the total machine, then most backdoors
> can't function, because they don't have the rights to what they want to do.
> And trojans will be limited to affecting a limited part of the machine that
> is controled by the user, not reeking global havoc. Of course this is
> assuming a flawless OS with a Perfect security model Wink

The same *can* be said about viruses. Not all viruses rely on ActiveX.
>
>>Add security flaws, such as the RPC exploit that
>>
>>>allowed Blaster, and you have most of the rest. Without ActiveX, you reduce
>>>the need for AV greatly.
>>
>>You just said 99% of viruses are due to ActiveX flaws. Now, you're
>>saying something different. It doesn't take you but 2 sentences to
>>change your mind.
>
>
> No mind change here. A reading comprehension problem on your end. That
> sentence means, of the 1% of VIRUS left over (that is what most of the REST
> means), the majority exploit the poor security model of windows. Make it
> simple. 1000 virus 990 will probably be activex. 7 will probably be OS
> weakness.

I may have a reading comprehension problem, but you appear to be very
loose with your estimating skills. How about some proof statements for
the 99%?
>
>> Close the ports and unneeded services that MS
>>
>>>leaves lying around by default and you eliminate most of the rest. Those 2
>>>steps would reduce the AV industry from a 2 Billion dollar a year industry
>>>to one of probably 2 Million dollars.
>>
>>You just whip these statistics out of your head?
>
>
> Not a statistic, an estimate. The 2 Billion figure was from your quote. I
> Estimate that the problem would be 1000 times less severe, therefore the 2
> Million estimate.

My quote? You mean the words I pasted in the text of my post, that were
attributable to....I thought it was you. No? Maybe someone else?
Certainly, I've never estimated that number.

Instead of 1000 virus (an example, not a hard number)
> being in the wild, you are down to 2 or 3. Much more manageable problem.
> About 1000 times less costly.
>
>>>There will always be attempts at exploits. Phishing and other "human
>>>engineered" exploits attack the weakest part of any security system, the
>>>human part. Why make it easier for the bad guys than it has to be.
>>>
>>
>>Your last sentences contradicts, not supports your initial point. Just
>>what is your point?
>
>
> The post I replied to said
>
>
>>Viruses don't depend on software flaws. Even if MS's code
>>were flawless - viruses could still exist and create a desire
>>for anti-virus measures.
>>
>
>
> My point is that the vast majority of virus DO in fact depend on software
> flaws.

Vast Majority? On OS flaws? I don't really see that. I'd say, recently
less than 20, not including the variants, of course (.a, .b, .c, etc).
What number do you have in mind?

The complexity of the problem when the software is not so easily
> exploitable is beyond the capability of crackers and script kiddies. If the
> software was flawless (not going to happen in any OS) then you have killed
> the market for AV products.
>

Well, you and I will have to disagree, I guess. I think if we were
talking about *firewalls*, I would be more inclined to say you and I are
on the same page.

While I disagree with your estimate of the percentage of malware that
would disappear with a more secure OS, thus eliminating the need for AV,
I do agree you could kill the market for AV if you eliminated 99% of
those who have access to computers <bg>. Malware is really a people
problem; people write it, people let it have access to their systems and
people have have to deal with it. The most secure OS you can come up
with is going to have someone administering it and someone using it.
That's sort of where things tend to break-down.

External Since: Jul 04, 2003 Posts: 1562

JT wrote:
[snip]
> The reality is that most virus DO exist because of flaws in MS code or MS
> lack of security in the OS model. Without the ActiveX flaws, 99% of all
> virus would not exist.

i don't know what you've been smoking but it's not been doing you any
good... viruses predate activex, and relatively few viruses make use of
activex... there are tens of thousands of viruses that operate under
*dos* - how on earth can they be dependent on activex flaws?

viruses do not owe their existence to flaws or security holes, they are
a consequence of the flexibility afforded us by general purpose
computers (read: the potential for viruses is inherent in all general
purpose computing platforms regardless of operating system and
obviously regardless of programming flaws and security holes)... at
best, viruses owe their feature-richness to flaws and security holes
and nothing more...

--
"we're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
the first ones in line for that pie in the sky
and we're always the last when the cream is shared out
for the worker is working when the fat cat's about"