windows vs real life - moved by Tom

[evolutionbanjo]

hello
i have always used windows.
i dont know what is on my computer messing stuff up and causing it to run slow, ill do the hijack this log in a minute, on my other thread.

but i want to ask a question 1st.

what is the main source of what is not suppose to be happening to my computer ?
is it viruses ?
is it malware?
is it adaware?
is it keyloggers?
is it ________?

why doesnt windows record every single thing that is installed on the computer... like a intelegent firewall or something.

can u press charges against someone who delibertly goes into ur personal, paid for, personally owned computer.

are they tresspassing or is it a worse charge like destruction of property with intent to cause mental illness in the victim.
i paid alot for my computer. wont that stand up in court VS the individual who pushed the button to cause my greif?...
in real life i could, isent online real life too ?
i feel like it is, but im not sure what the laws are. i know "companys" do it. arent they classified as humans too?

also,
do other OS have these problems like macOS and linixOS or anyother thats ez to use as windows. of corse ive heard they dont, but u know, i dont really beleive that, if windows is so MESSED UP how can the others not be as well to some extent.

i apprciate any info and opinions on this. id waste my time in court testifying vs any hacker noobs.

[Tom]

Although I wish you luck on getting folks to answer each of your varied questions about many different things in one post, let's move this request to the CTH Anything Else forum.

[evolutionbanjo]

ok...

ill make separate posts from now on. thanks for the heads up bro.

[Miz]

why doesnt windows record every single thing that is installed on the computer
Because malware writers work very hard to keep Windows from detecting their junk and malware writers are getting better every day.

can u press charges against someone who delibertly goes into ur personal, paid for, personally owned computer
If you want to know what laws apply to the stealth installation or malicious installation of malware and what recourse you have, your best bet is to contact the FBI (or, if you're not in the U.S., your country's equivalent).

[DJoe]

Windows would probably have to change the hardware, just like Apple to get these writers off their back. Although consumers wouldn't like this and Microsoft probably will always be a target and insiders up to no good.

[oracle128]

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

what is the main source of what is not suppose to be happening to my computer ?

It depends on what you mean by "what is not supposed to be happening". I'd say malware is the cause of computer problems a lot less than people think. Public awareness of malware has reached a point where it's almost become counter-intuitive - instead of computer problems actually being recognized and fixed, users are quick to blame viruses and other malware when the more likely cause is something like corrupt software, bad drivers, failing hardware etc. Sometimes, even the many anti-malware tools installed and running residently are the cause of problems themselves. Norton/Symantec products are a good example. The situation of "I've got 50 anti-spyware tools and my computer is slow what spyware is causing this?" is far too common.

As far as problems actually caused by malware go, I'd suggest adware is probably the most common culprit. It's the most noticeable, most annoying, and the most likely to be installed remotely via the web. Unlike the other forms of malware, which are developed with the idea of stealth operation in mind.

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

is it viruses ?
is it malware?
is it adaware?
is it keyloggers?
is it ________?

For future reference, any malicious software is classed as Malware. So, viruses, trojans, spyware, adware and some (but not all) keyloggers are types of malware. Also, a clear distinction should e made between adware (malware whose purpose is to force advertising on the PC), and Ad-Aware, an anti-malware product.

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

why doesnt windows record every single thing that is installed on the computer... like a intelegent firewall or something.

Keeping a log of every single activity on the computer is not feasible.
1) It slows things down
2) It would be too large to store
3) It would be too complex to be of use
4) It would log things that be of no practical use
5) It would arouse privacy concerns
6) It would provide too easy a target for crackers to attack and find out too much information (all your eggs in one basket)
7) Malware writers would just find ways to stealth their activity anyway. They already do now, hiding their activity from the limited monitoring/logging that a normal Windows PC has.
8) How do you define "installed"? Is installing something different to transferring a folder with application files inside it?

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

can u press charges against someone who delibertly goes into ur personal, paid for, personally owned computer.

are they tresspassing or is it a worse charge like destruction of property with intent to cause mental illness in the victim.

Usually, yes, but you need to check with law enforcement. It depends on how the person has accessed your PC, and what they did.

If they physically accessed it
They can probably be charged with criminal trespass and breach of privacy. Also, most civilised countries (including all 50 US states) have laws regarding unauthorised PC access.

If it was done remotely
The privacy laws and unauthorized access laws still apply where they do for physical access. The bigger problem with illegal remote access though:
1) Malware often excuses itself from the law by being mentioned in some End-User License Agreement, meaning the access is authorized by the user even if they didn't realize it. This is often true in the case of spyware and adware bundled with other, mostly legitimate applications

2) The attacker is usually afforded anonymity. It doesn't matter what laws they're breaking if you don't know who hacked you.

3) Other legal loopholes are taken advantage of. Aside from hiding in EULAs, malware distributors may take advantage of international legal safe havens, differences in laws of various countries, or simply the fact that some countries are corrupt and/or rarely uphold copyright, privacy or computer hacking laws, if they even have any.

What they did
The above covers just access to the PC, and adding software. If they deleted data, it may be possible to claim destruction of property. More likely it would only be civil law you could use to your aid.

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

do other OS have these problems like macOS and linixOS or anyother thats ez to use as windows. of corse ive heard they dont, but u know, i dont really beleive that, if windows is so MESSED UP how can the others not be as well to some extent.

Yes, they do, but not in the same way. This is somewhat of a complex point. There are hundreds of articles on the subject: Can Linux get viruses? Does Mac OS have spyware? There are several factors regarding the topic.

Can Linux or Mac get malware? Yes, it's possible.
Do they? Nowhere near as much as Windows.
Why is this? Several reasons.
Are they more secure? Yes, probably. It is impossible to say for certain since these OS's have yet to gain enough popularity to warrant dedicated attacks, so it is only a question of guessing whether they could stand up to such attacks. The security models of Linux/Mac and Windows vary greatly. One is not necessarily better than the other for all cases. They have different foundations, have different intents, and provide varying levels of functionality and usability. In addition, it's not just the OS one has to consider for security, but also the applications and services which run on top of that OS, and how they use it.

Example: there was a huge worm on UNIX in the 80s that took advantage of a mail utility (sendmail) running as the root (Linux's version of the superuser, or Administrator). Google "Morris worm" for details. You might wonder what this has to do with Linux/UNIX today; they're based on the same security model.

Is Linux more secure purely because it is open source? Myth. The fact that it's open source only speeds up the process. Vulnerabilities are found faster and easier. But the are patched faster. Which of course is only of use if you're always up to date with your patches.
Are they immune? No. In fact a default, unconfigured Linux installation is about the most insecure, much to the chagrin of Linux zealots who like to claim that Windows is insecure without additional software and configuration.
Why else? Linux and Mac aren't as popular. Hence not as big of a target.
Also, a large portion of malware writers do so out of pure spite of Windows/Microsoft/Capitalism. Windows is not a religion as many PC enthusiasts seem to think Linux/open source and Mac are(which fit snugly with the culture that thinks everything must be free and open to everyone - software, movies, music, no matter what the cost to the makers). Malware could be seen as the Linux religion's Crusades. (proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof (adult), proof, proof)
Also, the business models are different. The financial gains from releasing malware on Windows do not apply to free, open platforms like Linux. Companies that create malware (or fake malware warnings) to sell dodgy anti-malware products on Windows (NOT companies like CA, Symantec, McAfee, that's just crazy conspiracy talk), that kind of model won't work on Linux because of the nature and culture of it - no Linux user would pay for such software because the fix (if one were needed) would be released for free, and most likely integrated into the actual OS.

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

i apprciate any info and opinions on this. id waste my time in court testifying vs any hacker noobs.

Unfortunately, identifying malicious hackers, having adequate evidence for a court case, and prosecuting them are far different things.

[evolutionbanjo]

great info.
ive done alot more reasearch too... i spent 6-8 hours reading forums yesterday... i was in the coffee shop so long i dident have to pay for the nightly act...

im reading=
this forum, of corse...
wilders security forum
auhmn.org
comodo forums
avast forums
pcmag.com
pcworld
spywarewarrior
pac-portal ( on startup stuff)
bleeping computer
and other forums and links from the forums on info.


security is not what i want to mess with, but as im reading on differnt forums it seems im going to have too.. including uninstalling some of the free stuff that works when it needs an update, cause the whole thing needs reinstalling.

unfortunatly, i cant run one or 2 programs and have it do the trick, like ive been doing. i need a whole arsenal to fight off these problems.

question: are people who claim to not use any security at all, because they think they are safe surfing and all that, are they actually telling the truth, or just saying that to mess with everyone...?

thanks for all the detailed info ORACLE!! very cool ,explained alot and put it into better perspective for me!!
other folks, thanks too ur info is just as helpful and apprciated.
thanks!!
=)

[oracle128]

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

question: are people who claim to not use any security at all, because they think they are safe surfing and all that, are they actually telling the truth, or just saying that to mess with everyone...?

You have to realize that the vast majority of security breaches are the fault of users - downloading (and running) dodgy files, opening strange email attachments, using a USB drive on lots of PCs, etc. For the alert user it's quite possible to avoid most malware. For most remaining cases, it mostly comes down to the browser's security. IE6 and earlier are terrible at security. IE7 is much better, but I don't think it's quite as safe as Firefox, Opera or Safari.

A smaller part comes from the other software you use, mostly internet-aware apps like P2P software, web/file servers, any lesser-known software that does automatic updates or queries a web service, etc.

An unpatched system is also a problem, probably a fairly large one. Exploits can exist even in the very depths of the operating system, which is why using Windows' automatic updates is essential.

Whatever small amount is left over is just plain luck. An insecure system doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be attacked. Your current IP address pretty much has to be pulled out of a lotto draw of internet crackers, as they can't be attacking everything at once, in every way possible. Even a cracker's resources are finite.

Ignoring security software (or lack thereof), a number of other factors have to be present for a system to suffer an attack. Being a smart user eliminates the majority of the opportunity.

So yes, it's entirely possible to run a PC with very little security, if any at all. Case in point, the PC I'm using now has no protection other than Windows Defender and the XP SP2 firewall. I primarily use Firefox, with some IE7 on occasion. It's been running this way for something like 6 months now. I've not suffered from any malware, nothing other than a few tracking cookies have infected my system. Granted I'm behind a router, which provides its own little protections, but it still goes to show that it's possible to do. The problem is, most PC users are unable to execute what, to us techies, seems like common sense computing. Thus the "need" for the protective triforce of firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware/adware.