Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

LiveForever

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 13, 2007
281
0
The downside to open openness.

I'll have my iphone locked up like Fort Knox as long as the things I buy for it work.

This is why MS Mobile and Android both who celebrate their open to every man and his dog, his rabbit and goldfish credentials will fail. When it comes to phones they have to be utterly secure as we will be doing our banking, our work and our socialising on them.

It would be like leaving your brain open for someone to infect with a virus.


A quarter of US PCs infected with malware: OECD

An OECD study into online crime says that increased activity by cyber criminals has left an estimated one-in-four US computers infected with malware.

The report, entitled Malicious Software (malware): a Security Threat to the Internet Economy, gives an impression of two worlds engaged in an uneven war of virus invasion and belated defence.

Cyber crime, to steal data, spy and attack government and business computer systems "is a potentially serious threat to the internet economy," the study, published on Friday, warns.

Organisations involved in "fighting malware offer essentially a fragmented local response to a global threat," the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development says.

"Over the last 20 years, malware has evolved from occasional 'exploits' to a global multi-million-dollar criminal industry ... Cyber criminals are becoming wealthier and therefore have more financial power to create larger engines of destruction."

"It is estimated that 59 million users in the US have spyware or other types of malware on their computers," the OECD report said.

According to Nielsen/Netratings, the US internet population stood at an estimated 216 million at the end of 2007.

In the last five years there has been a upsurge in such criminal activity to attack systems and steal information, money and identities.

Using agents with names ranging from "zombies" and "worms" to "botnets," "Trojan horses" or "money mules," criminals can wreak havoc, usurping identities, recruiting and organising cohorts of computers for coordinated attacks, and even steal data for ransom.

"A botnet is a group of malware-infected computers also called 'zombies' or bots that can be used remotely to carry out attacks against other computer systems," the OECD said.

The report implied that some governments might also use similar techniques, saying: "It can also be assumed that nation states have the same capabilities."

The OECD warns that all forms of hacking have gone far beyond the adolescent disruption of the early days of the personal computer, to become a powerful and growing weapon in the hands of serious criminals.

It is highly profitable, at minimal cost to the criminals but a huge and unknown cost to honest users.

"There is no simple conclusion to the complex problems presented by malware," the report concludes.

"Malware has the potential to adversely affect any and all Internet users, from enterprises to governments to end users."

The rapid onward march of malware "makes international co-operation essential to addressing the problem," it said.

The first malicious virus, called "brain," emerged in 1986 and in 1988 a "worm" called "Morris" ate into more than 6000 computers. The development of electronic mail in the 1990s generated worm epidemics under such names as "Melissa" or "MyDoom."

Some studies estimate that about 80 per cent of web-based malware was hosted on "innocent but compromised" websites and one report found 53.9 per cent of all malicious sites were hosted in China, followed by the United States with 27.2 percent.

"In June 2006, a Trojan horse attacked files in Microsoft Windows users' 'my documents.' The files were then encrypted so users could not access them withut paying a ranson," the OECD report noted.

Kits to mount cyber attacks can even be downloaded easily from the internet and some even come with "service" contracts requiring the buyer to make new versions for the seller. This could cost as little as $US800 .

Addresses harvested through the Internet can be used to control a botnet and can be bought for about $US100 for 10 million addresses.

An association of British banks estimated malware losses at £12.2 million in 2004 but £33.5 million in 2006.

One defensive action every computer user can take is to install a firewall and anti-virus software to keep subversive agents out, and to react quickly when invasion is suspected, the report advises.

However, a study by the Australian government in 2005 found that only one in seven Australian computers was protected by a firewall.

AFP and agencies


http://www.smh.com.au/news/security...ed-with-malware/2008/06/02/1212258708582.html
 
This is why MS Mobile and Android both who celebrate their open to every man and his dog, his rabbit and goldfish credentials will fail. When it comes to phones they have to be utterly secure as we will be doing our banking, our work and our socialising on them.
FUD.

While there are risks, given a little knowledge and care it's perfectly simple to keep an "open" device secure while enjoying the benefits that it brings.
 
Maybe but a quarter that is 1 in 4 PC's are infected and I bet 80% of those have fire walls, anti virus etc.

I have all these things plus spam trap, email filters but I still get my PC infected.

Honestly that's what I got an imac to work along my PC.

I concede for you IT kings its a breeze but we are talking about mass market things and even more mass market phones then why should the average guy in the street be expected to have a degree in Software engineering to protect his life.
 
Maybe but a quarter that is 1 in 4 PC's are infected and I bet 80% of those have fire walls, anti virus etc.

I have all these things plus spam trap, email filters but I still get my PC infected.

Honestly that's what I got an imac to work along my PC

Both Windows and OSX are "open" platforms. Your logic is flawed. Linux is even more open and has even less security issues.
 
Maybe but a quarter that is 1 in 4 PC's are infected and I bet 80% of those have fire walls, anti virus etc.
Sadly I doubt it's any where near 80%.
I have all these things plus spam trap, email filters but I still get my PC infected.
I honestly don't know how. I have used PC's for years and have never been infected with a virus or serious ad/mal-ware. I don't go to town either, the setup has been pretty simple. AV (Norton AV Corp), software firewall, sat behind a router.
I concede for you IT kings its a breeze but we are talking about mass market things and even more mass market phones then why should the average guy in the street be expected to have a degree in Software engineering to protect his life.
While you do have a point, you also over state it, you hardly need to be a software engineer (I know you were exaggerating, but still) to keep a safe system.

The App Store is nothing more than a way for Apple to keep control, and more importantly is another revenue stream.
 
The App Store is nothing more than a way for Apple to keep control, and more importantly is another revenue stream.

Whilst this is true I don't have a huge problem with it. It's also a way for Apple to maintain the quality (good or bad, not sure on current iPhone :) ) of the user experience.

However, if they really cared about user experience they'd have a word with O2 about EDGE (and soon HSDPA) coverage - but I digress.
 
Whilst this is true I don't have a huge problem with it. It's also a way for Apple to maintain the quality (good or bad, not sure on current iPhone :) ) of the user experience.

For me this is the best reason... I think it will help seperate the good, useful apps from the crap.
 
Android will also be utilizing a marketplace. Personally, I think it's mainly about controlling the revenue stream. We can all discern good products from the bad.
 
Mobile devices have a huge advantage over desktop/laptop computers: they're much easier to wipe and restore apps to, if a problem arises.

In ten years, I've never seen a mobile virus on Windows Mobile. There was only a minor incident with Bluetooth on (I think) Nokia phones a year or so ago.

Until the iPhone came along, and Jobs used security reasons for not allowing third party apps, it was not a problem. (Remember his BS about taking down the network?)

Symantec and other anti-virus companies are now licking their chops at the idea of bogging down our smartphones with their software.

Vetting apps wouldn't stop a disgruntled programmer from sneaking in timebomb code. What does stop it from being a problem, is the sandbox that all apps are in... which supposedly means there's no need for Apple to check for security breaches at all.
 
We can all discern good products from the bad.

Apple has come out with strict rules for apps in the way they use power and access the systems.

Let's imagine a world without the Apple store where you find 20 'good' apps that all bend those rules a little. No single app is 'bad' (they all work fine on their own) but after buying all 20 you find that they add up and your battery life is now 45 minutes even when not using the phone for anything.

What do you do? There's no single 'bad' app there, remember. Well, your only choice is to re-format and say "to hell with applications."

And that's the most likely outcome. People aren't going to trouble-shoot and figure out what's wrong. They're just going to stop buying apps. You'll quickly end up with a world where only 15 - 20% of iPhone users ever buy an online app.

The Apple-store method may restrict the number of apps, but I guarantee it will boost the number of iPhones with apps on them. This will greatly help developers make more sales since their market will be larger.
 
Apple has come out with strict rules for apps in the way they use power and access the systems.

Let's imagine a world without the Apple store where you find 20 'good' apps that all bend those rules a little. No single app is 'bad' (they all work fine on their own) but after buying all 20 you find that they add up and your battery life is now 45 minutes even when not using the phone for anything.

What do you do? There's no single 'bad' app there, remember. Well, your only choice is to re-format and say "to hell with applications."

And that's the most likely outcome. People aren't going to trouble-shoot and figure out what's wrong. They're just going to stop buying apps. You'll quickly end up with a world where only 15 - 20% of iPhone users ever buy an online app.

The Apple-store method may restrict the number of apps, but I guarantee it will boost the number of iPhones with apps on them. This will greatly help developers make more sales since their market will be larger.

This is very well said, and probably the major logic behind the app store and the restrictions. It has far less to do with viruses and far more to do with general concern that people don't know or don't want to know the painstaking steps of: phone crashes. wipe phone. install one app. wait. if no crash, install second app. wait. lather, rinse, repeat. It's both time consuming and irritating.
 
It has far less to do with viruses and far more to do with general concern that people don't know or don't want to know the painstaking steps of: phone crashes. wipe phone. install one app. wait. if no crash, install second app. wait. lather, rinse, repeat. It's both time consuming and irritating.

Heck, restoring etc is irritating now for people, without any third party apps at all.

If after all these months, Apple still can't figure out how to keep their own apps from crashing, or updates from screwing some owners up, what in the world makes people think they can make sure somebody else's apps won't ?

:D

I'm not against the idea, I just don't think it'll solve world hunger.

Historically, far more helpful would be a process viewer, so that you could quickly figure out what was chewing up your device, kill it and avoid it. In a way, Apple is doing that automatically when Safari takes too long. Do they have a similar response heartbeat for user apps?
 
I tend to agree that by only allowing apps to be downloaded form a TRUSTED source will help protect the owners. OK , Its a revenue stream but I say great good luck to apple. The iphone research has to be paid for somehow and apple deserve to make a profit.

I think the word "open" is the wrong terminology, its more about using TRUSTED sources for downloads.

I would rather download a song from itunes rather than go to say allofMP3 or some other dodgy site. OK you'll download a song but what else are you downloading. It will slip in past all your firewalls and virus scanners.


I would rather have a reliable phone and a slightly limited choice of apps compared to a phone I can willingly download anything from anywhere and risk a comprimised phone.

To all the smug people saying with a little care its easy to protect your PC. Don't be too sure, half the time you won't know you have anything. We are talking about the subtle crashes, hang ups, difficulty to shut down etc which are all signs you have something dodgy.

You can pick these up just downloading demo software. I have all the protection money can buy but i still get adware, trojans and they all get past some how.
 
Apple will also forbid good, really useful apps, such as alternative browsers,
Citation please.
Flash video players,
Not if its a separate application, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
UI customization,
Agreed
and user friendly programming languages.
What's wrong with Cocoa?
I tend to agree that by only allowing apps to be downloaded form a TRUSTED source will help protect the owners. OK , Its a revenue stream but I say great good luck to apple.

I agree.

Historically, far more helpful would be a process viewer, so that you could quickly figure out what was chewing up your device, kill it and avoid it.

Seriously? As an everyday solution for non techie users?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.