[Kazoku]

How does the virus only work on Pc's and not on other operating windows? Is it becuz how Windows is made or how the viruses are made.... Viruses are big deals, couldnt it be better if they changed Windows OS so that viruses dont work anymore

Sorry im a 5 year old jk

[Elvandil]

All operating systems are victims of viruses. Windows is used by 98% of the world and people who make viruses want to cause as much damage as possible. The trouble is that when you lock viruses out, you also lock yourself in, so security is difficult.

[ferrija1]

There are also many more tools and kits to make viruses on Windows.

[monckywrench]

Windows is far more vulnerable by design.

[ferrija1]

Originally Posted by monckywrench

Windows is far more vulnerable by design.

There are some small things that make Linux and OS X security better but Windows isn't much worse, it's vulnerabilities are only exploited much more.

[middigit]

this is a sad fact, yes

[tom yerian]

Just a question: Why can't good hackers creat a program for the internet, that at the moment a virus or any malware is injected o the internet, it cant be traced back to original sender and shut down that system, and tag it to local internet cops. Just a question.
Tom at : andarria@gmail.com

[middigit]

i have questions for you tom

1. Do you really want hackers to create more viruses?
2. Would you realy want that to gappen to your machine?
and
3. Why does it seem to me, that by asking the question you just have, that you are in fact searching for information on hacking?

[ferrija1]

Originally Posted by tom yerian

Just a question: Why can't good hackers creat a program for the internet, that at the moment a virus or any malware is injected o the internet, it cant be traced back to original sender and shut down that system, and tag it to local internet cops. Just a question.
Tom at : andarria@gmail.com

1. Scanning every file that is put on a web server is impossible, you would need millions of machines to scan.
2. I hope you like spam, because if you post your e-mail address online, you'll get a lot of it.

[monckywrench]

"There are some small things that make Linux and OS X security better but Windows isn't much worse, it's vulnerabilities are only exploited much more."

There is plenty of valuable data on Linux/BSD/Unix systems. It is more difficult to write an effective virus for them.

""There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/

The weakness of Windows results in other losses, because users need to run memory-hoggin AV and anti-malware programs which require constant updating. Either way you lose.

[Elvandil]

It's just a simple fact of life that the more complex a system becomes, the more vulnerable it is. Windows is preferred by the majority of people. Linux is simply too primitive for most people. Command lines are daunting and literacy rates are dropping, making GUI's even more appealing. For the average user, command lines are an artifact of early computing are are well left behind as advances appeared.

I guarantee that if some flavor of Linux were in widespread use, there would also be plenty of viruses created for it. The absolute numbers mean little and reflect the fact that malicious virus writers don't want to waste their time in order to bother a handful of users. The UAC that Vista users complain about is mild compared to the constant security warnings in Linux. If Linux were inherently invulnerable, Linux security would not be such a constant and overweaning topic of discussion.

[obidon]

Originally Posted by middigit

i have questions for you tom

1. Do you really want hackers to create more viruses?
2. Would you really want that to happen to your machine?
and
3. Why does it seem to me, that by asking the question you just have, that you are in fact searching for information on hacking?

So? Maybe he does? Who cares.
'Lets all ban him from society' *sarcasm*

Hacking is not always crime, sometimes it is just curiosity with technology.
Anyways he was just asking a simple question, probably with no criminal intent.

[AKAJohnDoe]

PCs are the weakest link in almost every way.

[ferrija1]

Originally Posted by monckywrench

"There are some small things that make Linux and OS X security better but Windows isn't much worse, it's vulnerabilities are only exploited much more."

There is plenty of valuable data on Linux/BSD/Unix systems. It is more difficult to write an effective virus for them.

""There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/

The weakness of Windows results in other losses, because users need to run memory-hoggin AV and anti-malware programs which require constant updating. Either way you lose.

I'm simply saying saying that if the majority of the population used Linux or OS X there would be many more viruses for it, since there are many more people focused on exploiting it.

[D-Rock]

No one has yet addressed the question of

couldnt it be better if they changed Windows OS so that viruses dont work anymore

Thats one that i would like to know the answer to as well.