Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Security Communications Handhelds Worms IT Hardware

Cell Phone Virus Threat Overblown 160

Posted by timothy from the cell-phone-drivers-are-scarier dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Symantec has come under fire for claiming that 73 percent of smart phone users are aware of viruses and attacks aimed at their handsets. Wireless company WDSGlobal described this as a scaremongering tactic, with its spokesman saying: 'If you look at the viruses out there, currently there are about 14 core viruses, the majority of which are fairly benign. They are mostly developed as "proof of concept" to warn manufacturers of handsets and operating systems or the antivirus industry about potential vulnerabilities.' But Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, believes mobile viruses and attacks shouldn't be discounted altogether, though he believes they aren't currently registering on any significant scale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell Phone Virus Threat Overblown More

Cell Phone Virus Threat Overblown

Comments Filter:

  • SMS Spam is worse (Score:5, Informative)

    by esconsult1 ( 203878 ) * on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:40PM (#12472702) Homepage Journal
    While virii can be a little bit of a problem, I've never got any.

    What I have gotten regularly though is spam text messages. On a HTML enabled phone (Treo), the messages are sophisticated enough so that you can click through on a URL to bring up your tiny browser.

    • Re:SMS Spam is worse (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:59PM (#12472836)
      FYI, the plural of virus is viruses [linuxmafia.com].

      • Re:SMS Spam is worse (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        it's worse than that, of course. "virii" is nothing more than a possible plural for the nonexistent word "virius"

      • Re:SMS Spam is worse (Score:4, Insightful)

        by biglig2 ( 89374 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:30PM (#12473030) Homepage Journal
        I fear that it is too late to burn virii as the abomination it is. The thing with language is that it is defined not in books but by what people say.

        • Re:SMS Spam is worse (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          incorrect. language derives its meaning from mutual consent, and a few people saying "virii" will not change the fact that the currently accepted proper plural is "viruses".
        • That is the best response I've seen to a /. proofreader.
          Done typically to publically degrade the poster and elevate the proofer, you have Othello'ed" [mattelothello.com]

          And I do not believe I have ever seen this quote before.
          If so you should take credit or give credit to it.

          "The thing with language is that it is defined not in books but by what people say."
          -biglig2, Slashdot 2005 ?
          • It's an original quote from me, although the idea is not new.

            Woo, I'm a sig on slashdot. This is a very geeky moment. In fact, it's only not my all-time geekiest moment because CleverNickName once quoted me on his blog.

        • "I fear that it is too late to burn virii as the abomination it is."

          Uh.. why is 'virii' so bad that it's an abomination?
        • Let's call them viriises and end this mess once and for all.
        • > I fear that it is too late to burn virii as the abomination it is.

          Yeah but it's still not too late to ridicule people for their pseudo-intellectual coinages. Most coinages of "incorrect" forms happen from people NOT trying to sound intelligent and "proper" -- Victorian-era words notwithstanding.
      • Does anybody care, where "anybody" = 99% of the human population?
        • 99% of the human population would also say they would like you to give them a dollar. Are you going to start handing out dollars? Just because something is held in popular belief does not automatically make it so.

          Virii is not the plural of virus. Do 99% of "the human population" talk about the circii when more than one circus comes to town? Of course not. Would they correct me if I said it? Very likely so. This is no different.
      • "FYI, the plural of virus is viruses."

        FYI it's not a big deal.

        • Re:SMS Spam is worse (Score:4, Informative)

          by Macka ( 9388 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @04:29AM (#12474704)

          FYI it's not a big deal

          It may not be for you, as you obviously don't care about language. But for others it is. And someone has to speak out about correct spelling and use of diction in this forum every now and then. Personally I welcome it.

          Who are you to tell him his view isn't important? At least he had something intelligent to say.

      • Maybe we can use the "virii" to kill the "boxen" and the literary world will achieve equilibrium.

    • I have a friend who runs an SMS spamming company. He buys SMS messages from a European company at a large discount, which is the only thing which makes it cost effective.

      If the provider who delivers the message had the ability to pass some of the cost to the originator of the message then this would be less of a problem.

      • This being Slashdot, you're required to post his name, home address and phone number. You know, so we can call and "ask him some questions". Maybe send him some helpful products he might find interesting.
      • The delivering providor already does charge the origionating providor per message, but in most cases its between large networks which hand off to each other a roughly equal amount of messages, so they dont charge each other. SMS is not like email, and providors do get charged if they dont handle an equal amount of message traffic the other way.
    • I've gotten neither the virii or the SMS spam. but that might be because I still use a clunky old analog phone that doesn't support such things...

  • too many phones to write portable viruses? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:41PM (#12472706)
    So many different phones. It's too hard to write anything that will run on them all. Even with write once run everywhere technology ;)

    http://www.madecollective.com/ [madecollective.com]

  • No, the threat is not overblown. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:41PM (#12472710) Homepage Journal
    Unlike with most computer virii, there is an incentive to profit with cell virii.

    I'm sure there are people already working out how to get these programmable phones to call those phone numbers in certain countries that charge you an outrageous amount per minute. The wireless companies need to take this seriously.

    • Shouldn't it be obvious that these types of things are eventually going to be a problem on mobile platforms?

      People have been talking about digital convergence, and the idea that many devices are becoming one. Already, these mobile phones are just PCs who happen to have one primary specialized purpose (voice communications). Since they are basically PCs, unless there's something fundamentally different about the way the software is architected or the way the systems are designed from the start, there's no
    • Good thing I already opted out for out of country calls.

  • OK, let's sum it up... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mangu ( 126918 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:42PM (#12472716)
    Should we or shouldn't we be afraid of cellphone viruses? This is about the most confusing slashdot story I have seen in the last two hours...
    • There's controversy on the point.

      Do you need /. to go as far as telling you what to think, as opposed to just giving you data you can form your own conclusions from?

      • Re:OK, let's sum it up... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        I don't think his point is so much that he wants to be told what to think (although in this post-Michael Sims era, we're all a little lost without his condescending admonitions on every story). It's more wondering why "No need to worry! There's only 14 common viruses!" is supposed to be reassuring.

        At least that's the part I'm wondering about...

        • The word was "core", not "common" -- none of these viruses are common, but the others that exist are just riffs on them.

          So -- they have primarily harmless payloads and are rarely if ever seen in the wild. No need to worry -- at least not until more show up.

  • Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, believes mobile viruses and attacks shouldn't be discounted altogether

    WTF? Mobile viruses shouldn't be discounted? What make's mobile viruses any less potent than "real viruses"?

    Viruses are viruses, regardless of the platform.

    • The fact is there are very few malicious ones currently out. I don't bother with antiviruses with my cellphone (nokia 3650) because I know that any bluetooth data sent to it requires me to accept it with a comfirmation message (with the exception of contact data which is text only and not executable.) also I am only subscribed to text messaging, so virii can't get through that way either.

  • Well of course - (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thewldisntenuff ( 778302 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:43PM (#12472724) Homepage
    There's a large virus risk! Especially when you've got anti-virus software to sell.....

    -thewldisntenuff
    • I'm confused. So is your assertion that there isn't a risk, and these anti-virus companies are just smart enough to convince all the morons out there that there's something to fear?

      Don't you think it's a bit more plausible that perhaps there really is a risk, that people actually do lose valuable privacy and data to virii, and that they reasonably might want to take steps to prevent that?

      Now if you're saying that anti-virus companies might exaggerate or overplay the threat with dire scenarios in order to
    • There's a large virus risk! Especially when you've got anti-virus software to sell.....

      I sometimes suspect that there are some people who spend their days writing anti-virus software...and their evenings ensuring job security by creating new virus variants.

  • No way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mooga ( 789849 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:45PM (#12472742)
    "73 percent of smart phone users are aware of viruses and attacks aimed at their handsets."

    This is bull. If you stoped 1,000 people on the streat and asked them if cell phone viruses exist, 998 will laugh at you, 1 will say yes, and 1 will bable off in 1337 speak. While people has been able to make cell viruses, they aren't out there yet. Atleast not to my knowlage...

    • i doubt many people really know or care about security threats such as this. it has to be brought to their attention is a way such as this...

    • Re:No way (Score:2, Insightful)

      by line.at.infinity ( 707997 )
      Their statistics are meaningless. Note that it doesn't say 74 percent of random people on the street, they specifically limit to cell phone users. And of the people with cell phones, they're specifically talking about smart cell phone users. Smart is a vague criterion, which makes the statistic meaningless and most likely pulled out of their asses.

      • Re:No way (Score:4, Informative)

        by patio11 ( 857072 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:21AM (#12473725)
        "Smart cell phone" is an industry term of art [com.com] for the newer phones-cum-PDAs which can, for example, execute non-factory-installed programs and download content off the Internet. Smart cell phone users are people who use smart cell phones (i.e. the ones with current top-line phones, or about 3.7% of the total installed base, at least in the American context), who are, as you might imagine, easily identifiable to survey. [zdnet.com.au] Distinguishing a smart phone from a regular phone is no more difficult than distinguishing a PDA from a calculator (the TI-92 is a calculator despite having text capabilities, the PalmPilot is a PDA despite having a built-in calculator, and if your phone is running, say, Symbian and has a stylus its "smart").

        Why your comment got modded as Insightful rather than Funny is beyond me.

      • Re:No way (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rovaani ( 20023 )
        Do they talk about SmartPhone© users (MS) smartphone users (MS, Symbian et al) or smart phone users ie. ones that do remember to shut their phone down when going to theatre, can keep their voice low enough that the whole bus doesn't hear their conversation and do not keep their ringtone at maximum volume so that they can leave the phone at their desk while themselves being at the other end of the building

      • Maybe they meant "smart-phone users", as users of "smart phones", indicating UMTS, Bluetooth or somehow advanced mobile phones that allow some form of virus. In the same article there are other two instances of usage of the phrase "smart phone".

        I agree the 74% figure is total bull though, no matter the sample.

    • The 73 percent refers to users of smart phones, not the general public. Not 100% of the public are mobile phone users, and of mobile phone users (I think their number was) 4% have smart phones.

      I don't find 73% completely believable, but it was a pretty specialized group they were talking about. You'd have to know at least something about technology to have a smart phone in the first place (ostensibly because the extra functionality wouldn't be useful without some knowledge) - these people might be predis
  • Unless these cell phones start getting bad virii soon, Symantec will start to lose money. Hopefully, for Symantec, those benign virii will get modified into nasy ones by skript kiddies etc, prompting sales of Symantec mobile protection products.
    • Hopefully for us though, it won't happen. I never feel comfortable when the companies that do the best buisness are those which have to handle the onslaught of viruses, hacks and spyware.

      As for Symantec getting hurt in the event that the mobile market doesn't go anywhere, I don't see it happening. They've already got a cash-cow in the PC anti-virus subscription market (in corporate and home). If it comes to staying profitable and meeting shareholder's expectations, they'll could always just layoff.

  • Demand for Smartphone Viruses? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It makes sense. It's the same reason that there aren't many Linux and Mac viruses, there isn't enough people to affect. When there is one uniform OS Smartphone and the people using them aren't limited to savvy business men.
    • "When there is one uniform OS Smartphone and the people using them aren't limited to savvy business men."

      They'll need that AND more web enabled services. This'll happen soon, but I wanted to mention it. One of the reasons I have a hard time imagining a cell phone virus taking off is that most phones today rarely spend a lot of time on the net. SMS is about as close as one can get.
  • Now how on earth did they manage to infect all phones and read the users minds to figure out that 73% of all smart phone users know about and are worried about this viri crap. Sounds like viri marketing to try and reclaim some marketshare by throwing some majick numbers out there that don't do any good but make people worry about getting viruses on thier smart phones. Smart marketing, horrible kharma.

  • Awwww... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mangus_angus ( 873781 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:53PM (#12472803)
    I bought Cellphone AND Mac Anti-virus as a special bundle pack! Well at least I didn't waste my money on the mac protection, I mean Symantec told me I needed it...and they wouldn't lie.....right?
  • PROFIT is the biggest catalyst for cell virii. National Do Not Call lists have limited several marketers from spamming cells with text & calls. THere are, however, many companies who it is not beneath to promote their product (ie, the numerous enlarge your penis/free prescription drugs/etc e-mails i get) through less than leagal means.

    Maybe I should break out the tin foil hat, but perhaps it is the so called virus protection industry we really should be watching out for. With the cell phone marke
    • Damn Microsoft for introducing people to the concept of viruses. It's just in everyone's head now that viruses are a fact of life and there's nothing we can do about it except slap more software on our machines, and it won't be long before every smart-gadget in our homes has "anti virus" software available to it. I can see it now: Symantec AV Toaster Edition. 73% of toaster users are aware of viruses targetting their bread!" The cost to the consumer isn't even an issue compared to the computing resources wa
    • Maybe I should break out the tin foil hat...

      If you're using a cell phone, a tin-foil hat might not be a bad idea.

      *ducks*
  • Shame on Symantec for wrongly frightening us. I really do not see what harm can occur through a cellphone. Just for that I will remove Symatec from my Blackberry's address list!!
  • On the heterosexual AIDS "epidemic."

    "Oh sure, they're just dropping like flys!"

    Just like the looming Mac virus epidemic. Weird how when updating antivirus definitions, I see that Symantec regularly updates their Mac antivirus definitions. From what? One wonders if Symantec lives in fear of the Windows platform being eclipsed by a Unix type (BSD, Linux) platform on the desktop.
  • Can I get software for my cellphone to protect me from lion attacks?

  • Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nxtr ( 813179 )
    Get one of those cinder block cell phones from the 70s. You'll never have to worry about viruses again.
    • Get one of those cinder block cell phones from the 70s. You'll never have to worry about viruses again.
      You aren't kidding. Back in the 70s, SprintPCS sold Penicillin Cinderblock Service, and it was pretty damn virus-resistant. How times have changed...

  • Say what... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:20PM (#12472971)
    The reason why my cell phone drops calls is not because of rampant viruses created by 30-year-old script kiddies living in their parents' basement? My cell phone provider lied to me!

  • Symantec's Desperate (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PocketPick ( 798123 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:26PM (#12472997)
    Symantec is already under pressure from it's stock holders to diversify itself and expand upon the security market. They've taken in anti-spam and anti-spyware companies to beef up the privacy/security buisness, but with good, free competition thier unlikely to get where they would like to be. Buisness is good now, but no doubt the company is concerned about the future, with greater awarness of security from all ends.

    I wonder if Symantec's recent statements are an act of true concern, or just an attempt to bolster sales in the exploding hand-held & mobile market?
  • but maybe this post IS serving symantic, et. al. i mean, we're all talking about it, and this is on the front page of slashdot, for crying out loud. so someone who may not be as technologicly knowlagable as some others sees this, thinks, 'oh man, cell phone virus?!' and goes out to try to buy 'Symantic antivirus for motorola cell phone' or whatever. and they tell their friends, who tell their friends, etc.
  • the majority of which are fairly benign. They are mostly developed as "proof of concept"

    And all of the other benign proof of concept bugs have caused no damage at all. I mean look at blaster, and slammer, and code red, and...

    • Proof of concept virii do not inflict damage. Bad virii occasionally use proof of concept code to 'piggyback' payloads into systems, but blackhat writers typically write their own code, as POC code tends to be a little bulky and inefficient. POC virii + a dangerous payload are bad, POC code alone doesnt do any harm and is a fundamental pillar of computer science research.
      • Hardly surprising but you missed the point. POC no-payload bugs have done plenty of damage just by spreading.
        • there is very little POC worm code; rather POC code tends to be remote privilege escalation code that is run on an individual basis from the command line. If you could find me some real POC (from a firm perhaps?) that spread on its own, I would be very surprised. The worms that cause damage just because of the network traffic they generate are not POC, they are scriptkiddy-esque alterations of POC code without a payload. Security firms do not make POC worms.
          • POC need not come from a security firm. Anyone can prove the concept of a virulent network worm spreading by a given vector, or the concept of how it might choose to parcel IP-space to probe and attack. Other concepts might include algorithms to back-off when re-infected, or back-off when failing to infect a given percentage of the targets.

            And overall the concept you're proving to me is back-off when talking to free ipod spammers. Because you can bet your ass that security firms have POC worms exhibiting

            • you specifically mentioned several worms, none of which are POC in origin, they were written with the intention of damaging. Yes, a POC worm is a hypothetical possiblity, but if you think for a second that they make up any appreciable fraction of firm POC code, you are in a different world. The fact that any worm, by definition, needs a 'given vector' consisting of an entry point into a system makes the problem the entry point. The vast majority of POC code is the entry, the privelige escalation, etc. Find

  • Huh?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NitsujTPU ( 19263 )
    Ok guys, we need to be consistent...

    If Microsoft said that the threat of viruses against its OS was overblown, in the face of Symantec, we'd be up in arms vs MS.

    Are we really supposed to be up in arms against Symantec for saying that cell phones are vulnerable?

    Since when is it not a problem just because none of the viruses do anything malevolent yet? What is this, security through hoping the problem goes away?

    Also, we're suppose to beleive a telecom over Symantec? I'm not saying that Symantec has noth
    • i don't think anyone is saying that symatic is nessasarily wrong, per se. but that they are trying to amp up the perseved threat so people will buy more products.
    • "Are we really supposed to be up in arms against Symantec for saying that cell phones are vulnerable?"

      Well.. if they're selling a cell phone anti-virus product.

      Still, though, I see your point. Whatever Symantec's motivations are, there is benefit to be had over warning people about what advances in cell phone technology could mean. Cell phone developers have an almost clean slate to work from. If the big buzzword is 'security', hopefully they'll develop with the right mind set in place. Almost certai

  • Heh. (Score:2)

    by keesh ( 202812 )
    My Nokia 3650 crashes every few hours anyway. Like a virus would make it any worse...
    • maybe you have a virus, 'cause mine sure works like clockwork. of course, there was that one time i fried the phone with the gameboy emulator. good thing i got it replaced for free.
    • "My Nokia 3650 crashes every few hours anyway. Like a virus would make it any worse..."

      Except it could cost you money. I don't know about your service provider, but I know that once I've downloaded a meg of information, I'll start having to pay per kilobyte. I suppose potentially a virus could infect my phone, put it into internet mode, and start downloading until my bill gets ridiculously high.

      I'm not terribly paranoid about that, though. I'm more concerned over a virus that caused a bunch of machine

  • The solution to this problem is easy. Turn off your damn bluetooth. Some dumbasses (read: Paris Hilton) leave it on all the time, which means any idiot can come along and hack/infect your phone/PDA. If you just leave bluetooth off, except for when you need it, you will significantly decrease (if not illiminate alltogether) the threat, as well as increase your battery life.

    To those who will no doubt argue that they need their bluetooth headset:
    Headsets/handsfree is meant to be used in situations where

    • Re:Easy solution to a big problem (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're completely off....

      Paris Hilton's information was stolen through T-Mobiles Website, NOT bluetooth.

      The bluetooth security thing is a complete non-issue. So far the only "exploits" I've heard of require you to explicitly install an SIS installation file on your phone after receiving it. That assumes you are stupid enough to install something that just randomly came to your phone after being warned not to.

      To those who will no doubt argue that they need their bluetooth headset:
      Headsets/handsfree is me
    • No moderation points so I'll parrot the AC information where people will actually be able to see it -- Paris' PDA didn't get hacked, she chose an insecure password and got it guessed. The information was then downloaded from T-Mobile's web-accessible interface. No need to compromise the device at all.

  • Mobile phone viruses are the new hotness. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nijika ( 525558 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:48PM (#12473141) Homepage Journal
    This is where things are going, I wouldn't discount them for a second. While not as 'practical' or extendable as PC virii or worms, they have the potential to be a much bigger nuisance than either.

    This is a big red warning flag if anything. Overblow it if only to vastly improve mobile device wireless security, which at the moment is somewhere between not present and just asking for it.

    And luckily, my phone is too crap to be compramised, woohoo!

  • Since there are so many different proprietary phone OS's out there, (even the same phone from Samsung, one being CDMA, one being GSM, uses different hardware and different OSs), I don't think phone viruses will ever be much of a threat. Because the people carrying Symbian smartphones are still rare, and some of them only affect UIQ (p800/p9xx SE) and some of them only affect Series 60 (Nokia) phones. Also, most of them are harmless, and you can always turn Bluetooth off. But still, with there being a dozen

  • Too Bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by brogdon ( 65526 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:27PM (#12473397) Homepage
    "Cell Phone Virus Threat Overblown"

    It's too bad this isn't fark.com so someone could have stuck an [obvious] tag in front of that headline...

  • Only the Paranoid Survive: Listen to Bruce (Score:3, Insightful)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @11:47PM (#12473522)

    Ten years ago, viruses on PCs were uncommon. Now it's all we can do to keep a machine from being rooted in minutes. While the infrastructure of mobile companies is well NAT'd, the possibilities of people inadvertently getting snarfed is really high. There are five OS makers out there for mobiles, none of which do anything at all to warn users about possible hijacks, phishing schemes (how about emulating that Coke machine that someone wants to buy from?), viruses, and/or data theft (Hi Paris!) and other threats.

    Where Symantec is invested in making us paranoid, why not act now, rather than patch phones until we're blue in the face, like we do with PCs? I really disliked Symantec's other seemingly bogus announcements about threats where they don't exist, but with mobile use approaching a billion users, it's just bound to happen and with widespread panic.

    Imagine not wanting to use your mobile because you're worried about what might happen. Imagine getting popups, or very unexpected use from a hijack. Or having your authentication swiped then charged up the yang in the next few minutes. Sound like fun? It will happen. Or: just ignore it. It'll go away. Those bad people won't hurt you on your mobile.

    • "Ten years ago, viruses on PCs were uncommon."

      Seriously? How come I specifically remember cleaning viruses at school that somehow people had infected their computers with, then brought a disk to school with some game (Tank Wars, anyone?) that also harbored the virus?

      How come I remember sweating over whatever virus I had gotten from some legitimate shareware program?

      I haven't had a virus since about 10 years ago, actually!

  • F-Secure (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TuomasK ( 631731 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:48AM (#12473848)
    F-Secure tells, that you need to answer YES four time before you get infected. From F-secure's page: "So how come anybody ever gets infected by it if you have to click "Yes" so many times? Well, we've spoken to many people who've actually been infected, and they typically explain it like this: They got this weird message on the phone, requesting a "Yes" or "No" answer. So they clicked "No". But the message popped up immediatly again. And they clicked "No" - only to see the message pop up again. And since "No" didn't seem to be working, they clicked "Yes"... The message would have disappeared if they would have walked away from the area where they were (to get out of the range of the infected phone), but there's no way for an end user to know that." http://www.f-secure.fi/weblog/ [f-secure.fi]

  • I have trouble understanding why companies like Symantec are treated with so much authority by various media as security experts. Whether you know about computer security or not, Symantec clearly have a solid commercial interest in making people feel as paranoid as possible about using any domain in which Symantec might be able to sell them something. Simply knowing that should ring some alarm bells for any respectable journalist.

    Symantec, as with several other similar companies, have latched on big

    • I'd much rather get risk assessment information from independent security experts.

      Any "security expert" gets paid by somebody. If you work in the field, you have an interest. I'm more amused by the common slashdot reaction when someone dares to allege that there are also viruses on *their* holy platform.
  • Read http://www.vmyths.com/ [vmyths.com]
    The site may be shrouded in spyware ads now, but Rob the author knows his AV, and had the FBI NIPC pegged before they became known for allowing 9/11 to happen, and do little to prevent the spread of worms since its inception.

    He's reported for at least 5 years on the corruption in government and the AV industry when it comes to their stance on viruses. They don't give a damn, they just want your money.
  • At a Prodigy concert, mid sized, lots of rich people having "cool phones", Istanbul. 5000 or more.

    I had 3 Cabir requests on my Nokia 7650. Yes, I forgot the bt discoverable. Funny is, that 7650 is my brothers one and I didn't have clue they have viruses. I remember I was thinking "Why the hell you want to send a symbian application in a 10.000 watt concert?" :)

    BTW, I wouldn't buy Symantec stuff, I would go with Frisk's F-Prot. Forget everything, its geography. If you buy anything phone related, check Nort

Slashdot Top Deals

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?

Close