It's interesting that there is this perception. Is there any really hard evidence or is it just conjecture? This would make for an interesting paper if there were any credibility to it. I don't think my antivirus company of choice would ever partake in this kind of action, but I can see maintaining relevance being an issue for other firms.
What kind of malware are they going to be authoring on these $100 systems...and why would they use THESE computers for that? This is an unusual case of paranoia, and I think it is also slightly motivated by greed. I am all for keeping the world free from malware, but wanting to keep computers from those in need, just to alleviate a non-existent risk, seems irrational and bordering on cruel.
Been a fan of Sophos antivirus for a few years now. For whatever reason, they are not so well known yet in the states. I look to see that change in 2010, however. Their quality speaks for itself and with evangelists like Graham, it will not be long before they get their proper respect stateside.
Sophos makes a high quality antivirus product but the rep is correct simply because you cannot protect people from themselves. Despite what level of protection you have, human error or maliciousness can always usurp software.
Is it a virus flood? In my experience it is more of a case of peopel accidentally introducing malware to their devices because of external devices and memory cards, or getting malware from bad apps. I have not heard of any real virus issue on any mobile devices..
Pretty sick stuff when they pack the EULAs with stuff that, although not binding, ATTEMPTS to lock you in to years worth of purchases. I can see the call to support, "Hi, I have malware all over my computer." "Well, since you have agreed to buy all future upgrades, you are now required to buy one if you want this fixed." Sweet deal. Very cool customer relations strategy...
I have a hard time believing that any reputable company, especially a news site, would be the host of an intentional malware attack. Doing that on purpose would just be public relations suicide. it is more likely that they got some good bids on ad space, and unwillingly invited in some malicious code. In this case, they deserve only some of the blame.
The fact that they are still pursuing this case SUGGESTS that they don't know what they are doing, but COULD mean that they know more than they are letting on. It could very well be that the malware found on the computer was not totally responsible for the content that was present on the machine, but may only be a coincidence. I am just saying, we should keep an open mind on this one until more facts come out...
Unlike some companies who have been lax with their data protection practices, I think that Lexis has a real onus on them to provide security. Not only do they receive plenty of money for their service, they are handling some very important data. Let's hope this scare straightens them out a bit.
This makes sense, only because any other option would make zero sense. Can you imagine if MS had tried to make different versions of Windows 7 (undoubtedly this was discussed at some point), based on level of security. Windows 7 TITANIUM, for the ultimate in data protection!!! Fact is, the onus is on Windows to keep their own product secure, but I would like to see their security software integrated into the OS, instead of even being discussed as a separate product..
here is the thing...It's ALL private data. We, meaning every one, should be able to selectively choose what data we share. Whether this be our IPs, our internet searches, or our clicks, it is all our business and should only be shared with permission. Granted, there are several methods for increasing your level of data protection, but still, many popular services just bypass the permission seeking stage and just flat-out make money off of info you never explicitly (perhaps passively, however) agreed to share.
Ha, Imagine that. A company that is known for nothing but being a nuisance that nobody wants on their PC, is actually trying to sue for what amounts to defamation. Suing because they were called spyware? They ARE spyware verging on what I would consider malware due to the fact that their 'service' hogs up massive CPU cycles. I am glad they are no longer making money.
These classes are a fantastic tool for future IT professionals. Let's look at this logically, if your job is the detection, avoidance and removal of any malicious code, then naturally it makes sense to know how to author and inject such code. How can you be expected to get rid of malware if you cannot recognize, deconstruct and plan for it?
I am pretty much a bleeding heart liberal and I feel that anybody entering the country should definitely be subject to having their laptop searched. There was even some talk that the authorities were being given keys that could defeat encryption software, so they could immediately unencrypt suspect files...and I agree with that too, but I think I read that doing so was actually not allowed without arrest..
Now, a couple of years later, TJX has yet to pay off any significant amount of customers over their lackluster data protection efforts. But, their name has paid an ultimate price. TJX name value is below the basement and I understand that company credit card applications are at all time lows. Behold the power of a hack to shatter consumer confidence in a brand.
An interesting note to this is that while you cannot be forced to give any passwords that would unencrypt your data and potentially incriminate you, the government can bring in their uber hackers to simply crack your encryption software and forcefully extract data that may incriminate you. Seems kind of contradictory, don't you think?
So the hackers who successfully implement this malware will be rewarded with hours upon hours of mp3 files that they will have to wade through in order to find any relevant (valuable) data. This has to be the least efficient form of hacking I have ever heard of.
I agree that the the usage of antivirus in a cloud setting seems long on promises and low on delivery, but you must admit that it also seems almost limitless in potential. I can EASILY see this becoming a massively popular application, but I can also see it taking several years to perfect.
My favorite incidence of antivirus software blocking programs it should not be blocking was when my antivirus product X woul dnot let me install antivirus product Y. Then, my spyware program picked up multiple hits from antivirus X and Y. Why there is still no single product that does everything and actually does it well, continues to confound me on pretty much a daily basis.
Wow...she thinks she is such a unique being that nobody else can use or have her name. Does she really think she has any chance of winning, or does she just want to push the sites with her name on them further down the search results by filing this frivolous suit and getting the accompanying media coverage? Still, I wonder how her name ended up turning results for malware and pornography...Maybe some starlet user her name as an alias...unreal.
It's interesting that there is this perception. Is there any really hard evidence or is it just conjecture? This would make for an interesting paper if there were any credibility to it. I don't think my antivirus company of choice would ever partake in this kind of action, but I can see maintaining relevance being an issue for other firms.
What kind of malware are they going to be authoring on these $100 systems...and why would they use THESE computers for that? This is an unusual case of paranoia, and I think it is also slightly motivated by greed. I am all for keeping the world free from malware, but wanting to keep computers from those in need, just to alleviate a non-existent risk, seems irrational and bordering on cruel.
Been a fan of Sophos antivirus for a few years now. For whatever reason, they are not so well known yet in the states. I look to see that change in 2010, however. Their quality speaks for itself and with evangelists like Graham, it will not be long before they get their proper respect stateside.
Sophos makes a high quality antivirus product but the rep is correct simply because you cannot protect people from themselves. Despite what level of protection you have, human error or maliciousness can always usurp software.
Is it a virus flood? In my experience it is more of a case of peopel accidentally introducing malware to their devices because of external devices and memory cards, or getting malware from bad apps. I have not heard of any real virus issue on any mobile devices..
Pretty sick stuff when they pack the EULAs with stuff that, although not binding, ATTEMPTS to lock you in to years worth of purchases. I can see the call to support, "Hi, I have malware all over my computer." "Well, since you have agreed to buy all future upgrades, you are now required to buy one if you want this fixed." Sweet deal. Very cool customer relations strategy...
I have a hard time believing that any reputable company, especially a news site, would be the host of an intentional malware attack. Doing that on purpose would just be public relations suicide. it is more likely that they got some good bids on ad space, and unwillingly invited in some malicious code. In this case, they deserve only some of the blame.
The fact that they are still pursuing this case SUGGESTS that they don't know what they are doing, but COULD mean that they know more than they are letting on. It could very well be that the malware found on the computer was not totally responsible for the content that was present on the machine, but may only be a coincidence. I am just saying, we should keep an open mind on this one until more facts come out...
Unlike some companies who have been lax with their data protection practices, I think that Lexis has a real onus on them to provide security. Not only do they receive plenty of money for their service, they are handling some very important data. Let's hope this scare straightens them out a bit.
This makes sense, only because any other option would make zero sense. Can you imagine if MS had tried to make different versions of Windows 7 (undoubtedly this was discussed at some point), based on level of security. Windows 7 TITANIUM, for the ultimate in data protection!!! Fact is, the onus is on Windows to keep their own product secure, but I would like to see their security software integrated into the OS, instead of even being discussed as a separate product..
here is the thing...It's ALL private data. We, meaning every one, should be able to selectively choose what data we share. Whether this be our IPs, our internet searches, or our clicks, it is all our business and should only be shared with permission. Granted, there are several methods for increasing your level of data protection, but still, many popular services just bypass the permission seeking stage and just flat-out make money off of info you never explicitly (perhaps passively, however) agreed to share.
Ha, Imagine that. A company that is known for nothing but being a nuisance that nobody wants on their PC, is actually trying to sue for what amounts to defamation. Suing because they were called spyware? They ARE spyware verging on what I would consider malware due to the fact that their 'service' hogs up massive CPU cycles. I am glad they are no longer making money.
These classes are a fantastic tool for future IT professionals. Let's look at this logically, if your job is the detection, avoidance and removal of any malicious code, then naturally it makes sense to know how to author and inject such code. How can you be expected to get rid of malware if you cannot recognize, deconstruct and plan for it?
I am pretty much a bleeding heart liberal and I feel that anybody entering the country should definitely be subject to having their laptop searched. There was even some talk that the authorities were being given keys that could defeat encryption software, so they could immediately unencrypt suspect files...and I agree with that too, but I think I read that doing so was actually not allowed without arrest..
Now, a couple of years later, TJX has yet to pay off any significant amount of customers over their lackluster data protection efforts. But, their name has paid an ultimate price. TJX name value is below the basement and I understand that company credit card applications are at all time lows. Behold the power of a hack to shatter consumer confidence in a brand.
An interesting note to this is that while you cannot be forced to give any passwords that would unencrypt your data and potentially incriminate you, the government can bring in their uber hackers to simply crack your encryption software and forcefully extract data that may incriminate you. Seems kind of contradictory, don't you think?
So the hackers who successfully implement this malware will be rewarded with hours upon hours of mp3 files that they will have to wade through in order to find any relevant (valuable) data. This has to be the least efficient form of hacking I have ever heard of.
I agree that the the usage of antivirus in a cloud setting seems long on promises and low on delivery, but you must admit that it also seems almost limitless in potential. I can EASILY see this becoming a massively popular application, but I can also see it taking several years to perfect.
My favorite incidence of antivirus software blocking programs it should not be blocking was when my antivirus product X woul dnot let me install antivirus product Y. Then, my spyware program picked up multiple hits from antivirus X and Y. Why there is still no single product that does everything and actually does it well, continues to confound me on pretty much a daily basis.
Wow...she thinks she is such a unique being that nobody else can use or have her name. Does she really think she has any chance of winning, or does she just want to push the sites with her name on them further down the search results by filing this frivolous suit and getting the accompanying media coverage? Still, I wonder how her name ended up turning results for malware and pornography...Maybe some starlet user her name as an alias...unreal.