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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Anti-virus Vendors Eye Cell Phones 119

Posted by Zonk from the need-anti-virus-to-stop-telemarketers dept.
coastin writes "Are cell phones and handheld devices the next big market for anti-virus software vendors? While there have been more than 150 cell phone viruses discovered since 2004, compared to over 150,000 Windows PC viruses the count seems low at this time. Marketing researcher Gartner suggests a widespread attack could surface by the end of next year. With the number of cellular devices sold in 2005 far beyond that of Windows PCs and no choice of anti-virus protection for most cellular device customers, should the cell carriers listen more closely to the anti-virus vendors?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-virus Vendors Eye Cell Phones More

Anti-virus Vendors Eye Cell Phones

Comments Filter:

  • ah excellent... (Score:3, Funny)

    by wetelectric ( 956671 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @12:49PM (#14793975)
    I can now spend 30mins removing norton from my customers mobile phones aswell! yay!
    • Amen to that. This is rediculous. You know why people are getting viruses on their cell phone? Because they're no longer a cell phone . I mean really, get a PDA for your mobile needs. Or even a laptop. Get an MP3 player for your music needs. I'd rather not spend my day waiting for norton to slow down my cell phone as well as every windows computer I use. #endif // rant

      • Re:ah excellent... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by feanor512 ( 905622 )
        No. Some people would prefer one device that works as a cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, and camera. However, if you want to carry around your batbelt of accessories, go right ahead.
        • My point is: Would you rather use a knife, fork and spoon, or one device that has them all together? While it may be handier to carry them all as one device, having them as different devices will make each of their jobs stronger at what they do. In this case, you won't have to worry about your _cell phone_ getting viruses. Besides -- who uses their cell phone _camera_ as their main camera?
          • Not everyone needs (or is willing to pay for) the best in each category. For example, some people are just casual photographers. 2 and 3 megapixel cameraphones are available or coming soon in the US, and 6+ megapixel cameraphones are available in other parts of the world.
        • PDA, MP3, cellphone are all fine with me. The camera would get me banned from many worksites. Companies don't make it easy to find a phone without a "camera."
        • Let's see...My phone lasts me a couple of days now. My ipod lasts me about 8 hours (and has a larger battery). Why on earth would I want to combine these two items into a package that would allow for an even smaller battery? I personally like my phone to have batteries when I NEED it and I'd like to be able to finish off the batteries in my ipod and still be able to use my phone.

          It is silly to combine all of this into one thing. Even if you are a casual photographer, the 3MP coming through a shitty p

  • Battery life? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chrismcdirty ( 677039 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @12:49PM (#14793980) Homepage
    How would an AV scanner affect my battery life? Would it constantly run residently, waiting for me to download something? If it halves my battery, no thank you.
    • I tell you it won't affect my battery life at all, because I'd never bother installing one of these. They seem designed to do precisely one task: suck money from the wallets of the extremely gullible.

      Hey, this is America. We were founded on the premise that smart people can take economic advantage of stupid people. If they can sell it hard enough, well, P.T. Barnum's law suggests that their customers will soon be parted from their money.

    • Yeah this'll kill battery life. Especially if it is running actively, in that it scans all incoming files.

      Just as importantly how will this affect performance. Norton made my computer run at 2-3% cpu all the time no matter what I was doing. And if I was downloading something it jumped.

      And those dang scheduled scans, how about one of them popping up in the middle of your conversation? "Sorry my AV fired up while we were talking so I lagged out."
    • It shouldn't affect battery life - I use SimWorks Anti-Virus (disclaimer - I work for SimWorks) and while it constantly monitors incoming traffic we have not been able to measure any decrease in battery life.
  • ...using my cell phone, not only do I have to worry about running up a bill, but I have to worry about hearing AIDS? :P
  • Bad combination.
    I've personally seen just one infected S60 phone. The owner had hit 'No' a couple of times, then just "yes yes yes really yes ok ok ok yes" to get rid of the requesters.

    Stupid people should not have ANY control over their hardware.

    • You know, it's that attitude that creates DRE... unfortunately they assume that *everone* is stupid, not just the "most people" we're currently at.

      It's still well beyond me why anyone would bother writing a phone-virus other than "it can be done". Or why anyone would want to download anything in the middle of a meeting and then play it back on a 1" screen. I remember back when all cell phones did was call people. That was nice.

    • I've personally seen just one infected S60 phone. The owner had hit 'No' a couple of times, then just "yes yes yes really yes ok ok ok yes" to get rid of the requesters. Stupid people should not have ANY control over their hardware.

      It sounds to me that the 'stupid person' here was the engineer that designed a user interface that didn't allow the user to say 'no means no'.

      The feature of javascript that allows programs to repeatedly display popups requesting a code download is a serious bug. It is the res

      • Also in html there isn't a tag that can turn off active content. You have to go figure out what active content there is and disable it. This is relevant when you are displaying HTML from other people - advertisers, 3rd parties, users.

        It's like having 100 "GO!" buttons, and no "Stop!" button. You have to make sure all the "Go!" buttons aren't pressed.

        If in the future you have a new "Go!" button - making it 101 go buttons, your old code might not disable it.

        Whereas if you had a "Stop!" button that meant "stop
  • If you're like me, and believe that at least half of the viruses out there are made by the anti-virus corporations to convince you of the need to buy their software, then this is bad news indeed!
  • Wasn't nortons on this kick a few months ago? Anyway, turn off Bluetooth when your not using it (maybe a quick enable button on the phone its self?), and don't open email on your cell phone....seems pretty stimple to me. Of course so do the policies to keep them off your PC too.
    • Even better: don't buy a phone with Bluetooth. Bam! Problem solved.

      Making something (in this case, data transfer) wireless isn't always a great idea. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's a terrible idea.
    • It's actually what I do. I have modified my V551 quick buttons to include a shortcut to bluetooth. I press two buttons and my phone is seeking my headset.

      By leaving bluetooth on all the time I take 1/3 or more out of my phone's battery life. It's short enough as it is let alone with bluetooth, and trying to surf the web on the damn thing.

      I don't mind colour screens if I could modify the display a bit.(in the Phone book, make each contact group a different color, personal, family, work, etc)
      • But Bluetooth is only magical when it's turned on.

        I have a handsfree car adaptor. When I turn the key in my vehicle, it powers up and tells the phone "hey, I'm your headset now." If I get a call while driving, I hit a button on the dashboard and I'm talking. But if the phone's Bluetooth were off, the magic is all gone.

        I also carry a Palm. When I want to send an SMS, I chicken-scratch out my message in English and tap "send". If Bluetooth were off, I'd be digging out the phone and pressing shortcut

    • Okay, these two suggestions are not very useful.

      First, the whole point of bluetooth is that you can discover other phones. If you leave it off by default then if you want to send someone your contact information or a picture, you have to go through the phone config and turn it back on. And then you have to have your friend do the same thing. So, you just added what's potentially 5 extra minutes to the processes of exchanging contact information. And before you say, "oh just give them your number", contact i

  • If a widespread attack doesn't happen... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @12:52PM (#14794019)
    They would have to create one. Microsoft is going to eventually shut down their most lucrative market since consumers are more likely to trust Microsoft's own virus solution rather than pay a 3rd party. (I'm not saying that it is actually true that Microsoft is a better security guardian, but that's how average people are likely to react.) So the virus software vendors are about to become frantic for an alternate source of revenue.
    • Sadly i think your right about John Q Public and the antivirus market. But luckily there are some people out there that realize that maybe purchasing a product to protect you from the flaws in another one of their product might be a bad idea. Hopefully enough IT individuals out there who control corporate networks etc, will not be bullied by ignorant management to install the microsoft product. We'll see.
    • Large AV companies don't make their money from the average joe. Selling corporate software is where the dinero is.

      *Which is why tech support for consumer products sucks in general.

  • Network Filtering (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MankyD ( 567984 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @12:53PM (#14794020) Homepage
    Not that I support censorship in any way, but do not the cell companies have very tight control over their networks, and thus the data flow over them? What's to prevent them from disallowing certain data (i.e. known viruses) from flowing to their customers?

    <sarcasm>I mean honestly, can't they just check the evil bit?</sarcasm>
    • Because some companies may view this as another potential income stream. Sadly they dont always work the best for their customers, there are some companies that will refuse to disable text messaging on a phone and refuse to disable the ability to receive them. Because they will charge you for each one you receive even if it is unsolicited. So viruses that use up network time? Maybe another revenue stream with premium services to protect your phone. Now granted this is slightly a draconian view and many co

    • Re:Network Filtering (Score:2, Informative)

      by DMoylan ( 65079 )
      most of the content on my phone is uploaded from a pc. symbian 60 smartphones are hugely popular here in europe and most of the people i know upload from pcs. the viruses that are out there pretend to be games, apps for installation on the phone. the 2 s60 phones i have had defaulted to only installing signed apps. to install a virus i would have to turn this off and accept a whole pile of warnings about unsafe apps. viruses on symbian are like viruses on macs. anti virus companies seeking to expand t
    • Absolutely correct - many mobile viruses are spread via MMS, all of which are routed through operators networks and accordingly able to be scanned and stopped by operators. Not that most operators do this yet.

      Of course, Symbian phones are pretty much the most promiscous things out there - they are not only able to connect via the network (which can be scanned by the operator) but also peer to peer (via Bluetooth, IR, or cable to PC, and eventually wifi and who knows what). Which is why a both a network an
  • Let's wait for some real cell phone viruses before we all freak out.
  • Ant-virus? Let's hope this isn't as bad as the bird flu...
  • I bet there will be a widespread virus attack by the end of next year. That's when symentic will have finished writing, testing, finding a solution for it.

    Maybe it's time to go back to the zack morris cell phone. SUre it's a little bigger but I want to see someone write a virus for that thing.
  • So i better go for the linux phone rather than a window pocket phone
  • It ticks me off that we even need this. And I know we (IT professionals) all saw it coming. Viruses were a plague (pun intended) in the MS-Windows world back when we had the big brick cellphones, but instead of just making the damn things smaller, they added toy functions and programmability without adequate regression testing and then SURPRISE someone has found exploits for them, so we need now need AV.

    If I was more conspiracy minded, I'd think the AV vendors have been planning this for years... :-)

    Th

    • There aren't tons of exploits for phones. Only a few of the Smart Phones run Windows Mobile (which is arguably the only one that going to get many exploits), and even then the ability to communicate with the outside world is so limited that there aren't that many viruses.

      Add to that the fact that there are multiple underlying architectures, and a company that is bound by the FCC to enforce fairly strong limitations of their commications devices, and you get a pretty tightly controlled system.

      Heck, my phone

      • These are hardware devices that were...hold on let me reiterate that HARDWARE. That means that there are tons and tons of regression tests.
        HA! Hardware devices generally do get a bit better testing, but if you think they don't have a lot of flaws and require updates, then you haven't been paying attention. The cable company is constantly updating firmware in cable modems (and often screwing them up). Cisco has more serious vulnerabilities in its routers than I can count. Why are cell phones any differen

  • don't trust anti-virus vendors (Score:5, Insightful)

    by radarsat1 ( 786772 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @12:56PM (#14794066) Homepage
    Part of the reason I don't use anti-virus software, other than because they slow down and hamper your computer, is because they are the ONLY corporate entity that literally have it in their self-interest for a virus to show itself once in a while on your computer. I'm not saying they write the damn viruses (I'm not saying they don't either) but I do think they try to make sure something will slip by once in a while, just to keep it in the public's mind that they need this software, so that they'll keep it installed and pay for upgrades.

    Of course on my linux side I have no virus problems, but it's also been ages since I've dealt with a windows virus, because I keep things updated and use better web browsers and email clients, and I also strongly suggest the same practises to people I know, people who I know will come to me for help when they get one. Viruses just aren't a problem if you use your computer intelligently and remain somewhat suspicious of odd behaviour.

    All I'm saying is that it's sort of counter-productive, if you think about it, to have an entire industry who's very existance depends on malware, and who, if they are doing their jobs, would eliminate their very reason for being there in the first place. (Sure, the police are the same thing, but that is exactly why the police are a public entity, and not corporately owned.)
    • Part of the reason I don't use anti-virus software, other than because they slow down and hamper your computer, is because they are the ONLY corporate entity that literally have it in their self-interest for a virus to show itself once in a while on your computer. I'm not saying they write the damn viruses (I'm not saying they don't either) but I do think they try to make sure something will slip by once in a while, just to keep it in the public's mind that they need this software, so that they'll keep it i

    • Of course on my linux side I have no virus problems, but it's also been ages since I've dealt with a windows virus, because I keep things updated and use better web browsers and email clients, and I also strongly suggest the same practises to people I know, people who I know will come to me for help when they get one. Viruses just aren't a problem if you use your computer intelligently and remain somewhat suspicious of odd behaviour.

      Who said that linux is virus proof? It is not, no-one is writing linux v

      • Who said that linux is virus proof? It is not, no-one is writing linux viruses. Who said that firefox or thunderbird have no buffer overflows or other bugs. In fact, there were enough security updates to show that on-one is bug proof. I'm not trying to say that IE and firefox are same quality, in fact, I think that firefox is much better. I'm just saying that just because you use linux it does not meen that you are virus proof.

        I absolute wouldn't dispute that. Did I say that? I think you misread my post.

        Wh
    • but I do think they try to make sure something will slip by once in a while, just to keep it in the public's mind that they need this software, so that they'll keep it installed and pay for upgrades

      But which AV company would volunteer for this role? If a single company had a monopoly, this might be believable, but with a healthy competition going on right now in the AV industry, no AV company is going to intentionally let a recognized virus through. They look far better if they can release press that r
  • I'm sure Verizon would be very interested in cell phone virus software if it can help them continue to prevent customers from using software other than Verizon's own software.

    But I doubt that such software would be used to improve service or reliability from the customer's point of view.
  • Cell phone operators have typically focused on their network, rather than phones, as the place to try to thwart mobile virus threats. In moves invisible to users, they scan messages moving from one device to another to filter out malicious programs. Verizon Wireless, which has 51.3 million customers, and T-Mobile USA, which claims 20 million customers, both have scanners in place, representatives said.

    It would seem to me that it makes more sense to keep the virus from getting through in the first place th

    • Agreed, the network is the best and most efficient place to deal with mobile viruses.

      Unfortunately Symbian devices don't just connect via the network but also peer to peer (via Bluetooth, IR, cable etc). Obviously a network scanner is no use in relation to a virus bluetoothed from one phone to another. This is the reason that both a network and handset based solution is necessary.

  • how about less vulnerable phones? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @01:05PM (#14794153) Journal
    Why does my phone need to have the ability to execute malicious code in the first place? A phone does not need a web browser, chat client, and e-mail client. A phone certainly DOES NOT need any sort of scripting engine. Why did the cell phone manufactures go and add vulnerabilities into the phone in the first place?

    • A phone does not need a web browser, chat client, and e-mail client.

      Mine does.

      Next.

    • It's not a vulnerability, it's a feature!

      Unfortunately it's true. To drive the industry, and acquire a larger market share, cell phones companies have to make more advanced products, and the more advanced the products become, the more vulnerabilities are created. One created a phone that can store 10 numbers, another goes for 20, another adds phone-to-phone messaging, then chat, then web, and so on and so on, until you bascially have a computer in your hand that can also be used to make phone calls. Which

    • > A phone does not need a web browser, chat client, and e-mail client.

      Where does it say that?

      > A phone certainly DOES NOT need any sort of scripting engine.

      My phone has Symbian and Java. I'd imagine scripting comes in rather handy.

      > Why did the cell phone manufactures go and add vulnerabilities into the phone in
      > the first place?

      If by `vulnerabilities` you mean `the capacity to run third party code written in Java and C++` then the answer is probably `when the market demanded it`. Frankly I rat
      • So get an older phone with less features.

        Where? And why do I have to get some used POS when all I want is a telephone I can take with me? The largest nationwide network (Cingular/ATT) actually stopped supporting older phones a while back, anyway.

        Can't you damned kids just get a laptop for better email, music, and game playing - and maybe a camera for taking better pictures? :) I want a phone that turns on in less than 10 minutes and has a display that doesn't run the battery down in seconds (hint: it jus
        • Will this do?

          http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/POKIA-retro-mobile-phone-han dsfree-PHOBILE-cool-gadget_W0QQitemZ9105970823QQca tegoryZ42427QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem [ebay.co.uk]

          Or just look elsewhere on eBay for more normal (ahem) old phones.

          > And why do I have to get some used POS when all I want is a telephone I can take
          > with me?

          Stuff that would cost thousands of pounds are pratically given away thanks to mass production. The downside is when stuff goes out of fashion you have to make do with the new stuff. Overall, it works i

          • U.S. Cellular still maintains their AMPS network. They're the only way to get cellular phone service up in the hills 'round these parts (Lake County, CA, US). Well, that's not strictly true; for instance, if I'm at my friend's house on Cobb Mountain, I can walk about two miles (mostly uphill) to a point at which I can get about three of five bars on GSM1900.

          • I've been considering one of those giant handsets, actually. Last time I got a phone, I got a non-flip phone, so it's too damned small for my fat head. Derek Zoolander and his tiny phone adequately mock the shrinking phone.

            Displays: so use 20 digits - that'd still take less power to run than a million pixels. 14 days is better than 11.

            I have warmed up to the camera in phone thing, though. It's nice to always have some kind of camera on me, though I still use the "real" camera when I know I'm gonna want

    • I wish you pathetic luddites would fuck off back to the shack in the Ozarks that you crawled out of. Further, I wish the idiot moderators that keep modding you types as "insightful" would lose their eyesight - I can't imagine anyone being tenacious enough to read and mod slashdot on a braille reader, although now that I think of it probably 100% of those assholes would do so. The fact is that you are so far in the minority that you don't even show up as a inconsequential statistical anomaly. You don't even

      • You're stretching here. Joe Sixpack does not want complicated electronics.

        In fact I own a nice almost featureless cell phone made by Kyocera. They do exist and have no need for antivirus "solutions."

        If I ever feel I want more, I'd rather have a PSP.
    • Well that's the beauty of the free market - no one phone will suit everyone. They can make fancy potentially vulnerable phones for those that one them and simpler less functional phones for those that don't. Bottom line, if you don't think a phone needs a web browser, IM, email etc, get a cheapy that doesn't.

  • A notable Cell Phone virus is going to have to arise before people will be bothered to install an anti-virus. If you asked most people what the thought of the possibilty of Cell Phone viruses, they'd probally look at you as if you had 3 heads. They think of their Cell Phone as they do their Toaster, or their Television, not as their Computer. It's going to be a hard sell for companies if there is no problem to solve.

    Some of these antivirus companies are gonna have to buckle down and write some good viruses

  • If WinCE becomes dominant the way it has on the desktop, then yes, there will be viruses galore.

    If Linux were to become dominant, the situation wouldn't be quite as bad (fewer viruses) but the ones that came out would hit harder since fewer phones would be protected against them. Same for Java or whatever other non-Windows thing.

    If the market remains splintered in terms of OS, that would hinder viruses from spreading. Most high-profile markets tend to consolidate around one or two big players, and as cell
  • ... as long as the viruses are spamming other cell phones the cell phone companies stand to benefit (revenue-wise...assuming they charge for each message sent or received).
  • That's about 150 more viruses than have been discovered for Mac OS X in the same time frame and yet they market anti-virus software for the Mac, so why not for cell phones.

    Markets aren't built on reality, they are built on perception of reality; most cell phone users use Windows and are used to viruses on Windows so they will easily buy into the notion of the cell phone being just as vulnerable to viruses as their desktop computer is.
    • they market anti-virus software for the Mac, so why not for cell phones.

      Because both are stupid ideas. And so is Virus protection on Windows. That Microsoft is developing an anti-virus solution is only more proof of their laziness at fixing the problems which cause viruses in the first place.

      Markets aren't built on reality, they are built on perception of reality

      That doesn't make it right.
  • ... no choice of ant-virus protection

    Oh no, first bird flu, now ant viruses!

  • Protect from what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xdroop ( 4039 ) on Friday February 24, 2006 @01:21PM (#14794301) Homepage Journal
    Virus protection is inherently a reactive process: until you understand the threat, you can't protect against it. (Proof: if Windows virii were understood in general correctly, you'd buy one virus scanner that would protect against any future virus. The fact that updates are constantly required illustrates the reactive nature of the business [xdroop.com].)

    So "Virus Scanners" for cell phones today will only protect against those ~150 threats that exist today. By definition, you can not protect against all future threats today (because if you could, your OS provider would have already done so).

    Once threats become more widespread, the concept of a "Virus Scanner" will become more plausible.

  • I know the idea of White Lists have been mentioned before, i'm wondering why nothing has been done with them? their cost benefit ratio when compared to antivirus software, and black lists seem to leave them as the better option.

    So why is this not being considered, or implemented?

    Kyle

    ( background info: white lists [wikipedia.org] )

  • Yay (Score:1)

    by Jakuta ( 643082 )
    Anti-Virus Company: Oh look the market is saturated Mkting Company: There were 150 Virii found in cell phones in a 20 month period. Anti-Virus Company: Oh look exploitable virgin territory...Get the coders on it! Mkting Company: Let's start with bringing a campaign that promotes fear and distrust, spawns bored coders to try something new, then we can saturate the market with more useless information and solutions to a niche area. Yay, more of my money, my time, and my life being sucked down the tubes... I
  • I have participated in one of their "surveys" and received a "summary" of the results. The questions seemed loaded tending to push the answers to favor whom I suspected paid for the survey. Not suprisingly, the results confirmed my suspicion. This paper sounds like the same sky-is-falling crap that was Y2K. It would be interesting to go back and see what these "analysts" said about that.
  • Just another way for the Anti-viri companies to bilk money from the average non-tech-type. IMO every anti-virus company has a small team in a seculded part of the building writing the virus and releasing it into the wild . . . it's job security.
  • As long as the consumer can choose between: a) Cell phones which do not get viruses b) Cell phones which do get viruses and as long as an evil monopoly doesn't make every choose option b... God, I just hate anti-virus companies.
  • WTF does anyone stand to gain by compromising my cell phone? Do they want my free weekend minutes?

    As if I needed another reason not to upgrade my 3 year old nokia. No camera, minimal PDA function, no link to PC or thar intarweb. It's durable, and it's a fucking phone!!! Jeez.
  • "With the number of cellular devices sold in 2005 far beyond that of Windows PCs and no choice of anti-virus protection for most cellular device customers, should the cell carriers listen more closely to the anti-virus vendors?" The cell phone vendors really should listen, because they are about to get extorted the same way that pc users have been for the last 15 years. It is obviously in the anti-virus industry's best interest to secretly fund the development of new viri. In order that the company may op
  • Look, unlike many (most?) here, I use Windows, I ::gasp:: even like Windows. Or at least I like it enough to deal with some of its antiquated architecture (which is why I believe that the platform has these security issues [though certainly there are other reasons as well]). Cell phones are relatively new. Programmable cell phones are VERY new. There are no backward compatibility issues; on top of that, by their very nature these things contain somewhat sensitive data. Why aren't these things being des
  • If I have a cell phone that is either not internet-enabled (or that I do not use to browse the internet), and has no bluetooth, what do I need antivirus software for?

    Trying to sell me antivirus software for my cell phone is like trying to sell winter coats to Ecuadorians.
    • If you don't use Bluetooth, IR, transfer files to your phone from your PC, install unsigned third party applications, surf the web from your phone or ever receive MMS from anyone then you definitely don't need a mobile anti-virus solution. Even if you do some of this then getting a mobile anti-virus solution probably shouldn't be on the top of your shopping list. But the more of these you do and the more frequently you do them then the more that getting some sort of mobile anti-virus protection starts to
      • If you don't use Bluetooth, IR, transfer files to your phone from your PC, install unsigned third party applications, surf the web from your phone or ever receive MMS from anyone ...

        Turns out that I use my phone to -- wait for it -- make phone calls. Thanks for validating me.
  • Creating a market for themselves. You have to ask yourself, what exactly are they doing releasing frequently updated antivirus definitions for OS X?
  • Even if you get a virus on your phone, there's no way the virus will auto execute on the your Symbian S60 smartphone without you knowing it unless you downloaded that cr*cked game.
  • "Marketing researcher Gartner suggests a widespread attack could surface by the end of next year." - Slashdot "According to the authors, a fast-spreading phone virus or worm is *unlikely* to appear before the end of 2007." - Article referred.

  • Running up the bill (Score:2, Interesting)

    by duplo1 ( 719988 )
    Personally, until mobile wireless broadband (e.g. HDSPA, EVDO, etc.) services become more pervasive and not to mention MUCH cheaper, I don't think there will be a huge problem. Viruses don't spread through the air - they would require the terminal device to be active and connected.

    Assuming a piece of malware could activate the data radio at pre-determined times (e.g. late at night), it could really run up the bill for those who don't have unlimited data plans.

    Another avenue of attack, which I see as most li
  • Gives them an excuse to impose BREW2 or similar signing technology to keep independent applications out. Such signing methods are of no real benefit to the user, but of significant benefit to the carriers, so they have to come up with a flimsy excuse to force it on you...
  • We should take all their staff, and send them off in a big spaceship, to the farthest corner of the galaxy, along with other useless types like hairdressers, advertising execs, and middle-managers.
  • Cellphone application, with internet in general, have had a bad history with me. Other than one phone I hacked up with some 3rd-party apps, the only time I've really managed to screw up a phone software-wise was browsing (on my providers site, for phone #'s I believe). Web browsers on phones are hardly a tried-and-true technology, and the thought of adding more software, and things such as AV software frightens me. There have been a few incidents where I've strongly linked poor behavior and errors not to vi

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close