A small target vs a HUGE target? Keep in mind the virus writers are or could be a lazy as the Application developers. If you have been writing Windows viruses for years you tend to continue doing so until the target is of little value. If you are a developer you don't generally develop for 2 platforms only one and when you are a master at one you don't generally go work on another until forced to.
That is human nature at work! Jon On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure what point you are disputing but 115 (total) versus 70,000 per day > (your numbers from earlier today) is kind of lopsided. I'm not saying that > 115 isn't enough to worry about, but if 115 in 8 years is "growing fast", > what in the world do you call 70,000 per day?!?! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stu Sjouwerman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:17 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > Erm, There are 115 known strains (and growing fast) of malware for the Mac. > That's why we are releasing a VIPRE client for the Mac in Q2. They have sold > enough machines to make it attractive for cyber crime to go after. All > security models will break as per the principle of the 'bigger hammer'. > > Warm regards, > > > Stu Sjouwerman > Co-Founder, Publisher, Sunbelt Media > P: +1-727-562-0101 ext 218 > F: +1-727-562-5199 > [email protected] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:10 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > And you are making the (rather dramatic, IMO) over generalization that > Microsoft simply tells app vendors what to do and expects them to move at > the drop of a hat. > > The reality is that MS has typically bent over backwards to ensure > backwards compatibility (to a fault you may argue) for applications wherever > possible. That has been one of the tenets of their OS design since Windows > had DOS boxes. > > They have compatibility flags within the OS to special case specific apps > and installers. They has wow32 and wow64. They did FX!32 on Alpha. > They've supported old versions of API's along with new versions. They allow > unsigned hardware even though the new model requires signed hardware. Etc, > etc... > > Heck, up until Vista you could still run something from 20 yr old DOS.. > > Now would they LIKE apps vendors to comply with new direction day1? Yes. > Do they all? No. So there is much notification, suggestion, development > guidelines, DevCons, etc... to shepherd app vendors the right direction. > > Your "MS simply flips a switch and expects devs to comply" sentiment is an > inaccurate oversimplification. > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:57 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: WTF? Fake AV > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Steven M. Caesare > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A) hardware driver models are a somewhat different beast, and that's > > > held true for many a platform, and isn't really germane to what we > are > > > discussing here. > > > > The only point I was making (and the one you're determined to > ignore, it > > appears): Microsoft routinely throws their weight around to tell the > rest of > > the industry to change to Microsoft's new way of doing things. > Microsoft > > elected not to do that with security. > > > > The question was asked (paraphrased): "Why did it take Microsoft so > long to > > do anything about security?" I answered that question. No less, no > more. > > You're the one who keeps trying to drag the question off into the > weeds. > > > > Of course, an equally valid question would be, "Why did it take > Apple so > > long to do anything about security?" But that wasn't the question I > was > > addressing. > > > > > Using AV infection #'s to compare those things and draw the > conclusion > > > he did is no accurate, IMO. > > > > That I would agree with. > > > > -- Ben > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
