Virus Scanner for IPAD and Andriod tablets?
Community Forums/General Help/Virus Scanner for IPAD and Andriod tablets?
| ||
| I am not sure which one is good Virus scanner for ipad and also for my sister who have andriod tablets... |
| ||
| Common sense when installing programs seems to be more effective than running antivirus on a tablet -- the vast majority of the 'anti'-virus programs you'll see there are worse than not running one at all. |
| ||
| There should have anti virus on Ipad and Andriod tablet. Why are there no good Anti virus software for tablets? |
| ||
| There should have anti virus on Ipad and Andriod tablet. Why? Especially in the case of iOS, any possibility of infection means there is a critical, high-priority bug in the OS itself. Antivirus is completely redundant when it's directly Apple's fault if you get infected. They know this and will respond as quickly as possible already. |
| ||
| Why are there no good Anti virus software for tablets? If there were a need, there would be. |
| ||
| I would class this as a need: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27703318 |
| ||
| I use Malware bytes anti malwares on my android tablet, but if you take the time to read the "autorisations" a app/game requires, you can have an idea of if the app/game is potentially risky or not. |
| ||
| Thankfully with Android the installation process indicates whether there is anything to worry about potentially....if it doesn't access the internet or your data then there's not much to worry about for the most part. |
| ||
| Using AVAST Free on my S3. Fine so far. But can anybody please explain to me why this, in my eyes myth, persists that Apple users can't get virus infections? Or does it make sense really? All it takes is an infected USB stick or nasty non-Apples sourced download right? Or did Apple build antivirus into iOS? |
| ||
| But can anybody please explain to me why this, in my eyes myth, persists that Apple users can't get virus infections? Or does it make sense really? It's /harder/ to infect apple devices, since: 1) the user doesn't run with administrative rights (unlike Windows), and have to actively enter their password before they can install something: Much smaller chance of unknowing system modifications that way 2) Thankls to the walled garden ecosystem, any and all apps published through their appstore (which is the only way to get non-developer software installed) are inspected by Apple first. It's certainly not impossible to get a virus on Apple devices, but it is harder. |
| ||
| Or did Apple build antivirus into iOS? One of the things that can make this difficult to grasp is revealed by the above quote. Antivirus is not the solution. Antivirus is in fact denying the problem. The way to prevent infection and deal with viruses is to build a more secure OS that doesn't have as many open avenues for infection. There is absolutely no logical reason - no excuse - from the user's perspective, why plugging in an infected USB stick should be a problem, for instance, because the user never gave that collection of static files permission to infect anything in the first place. In such situations, the responsibility for the problem lies with the OS developer to fix their broken product so that the infection can't repeat itself. This goes double for the iOS case, where nothing that hasn't come through Apple should ever be in a position to execute in any way. Imagine a baffled Umbrella Corp. executive talking to a counterpart from a real-world company and asking "so do you just give away free tactical nukes with your medicines?" Viruses do infect Unix-based products periodically; the difference is that the developers don't just shrug and suggest you get a third party to fix it for you as though they give up on building a working product; or suggest that it's your fault that a static file can somehow turn into executable code simply from existing on your machine without being explicitly granted permission to act. |
| ||
| if it doesn't access the internet or your data then there's not much to worry about for the most part. That's true, but most apps/games require internet access for Ads/IAP etc... so any app you download without internet access is few and far between. |
| ||
| The way to prevent infection and deal with viruses is to build a more secure OS that doesn't have as many open avenues for infection. If you consider only viruses, a more secure OS is probably the way to prevent problems, but what about hidden keyloggers ? hidden trojans ? hidden malwares ? who try to get your usernames and passwords, your bank card infos, without your consent ? to send costly sms or phone calls without your consent ? to try to make you pay for something you don't need ? In this case an anti malwares app is welcome because it is the job of the developers and of the users to report apps with a bad intention and to have a black list for all users to be protected from or at least to be warned about the dangers of using such a app. Personally i would never use a keyboard app because i don't know exactly what the app is doing with the datas i type. This kind of app + auto update activated is asking for trouble. Sometimes it is interesting to see that some blacklisted websites (server IPAs) do not seem dangerous but have been blacklisted probably because of an ignorant user being afraid of a pop up or a malfunctioning js script. |
| ||
| Thanks for the explanation guys. Some good points there, however: is it really possible to create an OS that's making it impossible to get infected, accounting for every possible situation? Appears there are always new unheard of ways to exploit an element that leads to opening a door in the box imho. |
| ||
| I'm always amused when people think a computer not connected to the internet couldn't get infected by a virus. Colleges and universities had problems like that where students used to infect things with a floppy disk or other media. |
| ||
| My mate used to keep floppies that had a virus on, in a separate box to all the others. Pranny. |
| ||
| Make an OS that's impossible to get infected: Sure, just don't allow network access, no user-supplied binaries, no file saving, and no data entry. Seriously: You can mitigate the dangers by preventing 'unsafe' operating system calls, by preventing programs to save outside of their own isolated folders/containers/sandboxes, having no interaction between seperate programs, and no allowing any untrusted binaries. Unfortunately, preventing programs from interacting with one another or sharing data also significantly reduces the functionality that software can provide to you. No 3rd party toolchains, plugins, or file editors, etc. Security is a trade-off between safety and usability. you can't really compromise a paperweight, but you won't be very productive if that's all you have on your desk. (And aside from the above: despite the best design and intentions, there's ALWAYS a chance that there's a bug in the program or compiler or library or <whatever> that allows an unexpected permission escalation: buffer overruns writing data to the wrong part of memory where it may get executed by an unrelated functioncall elsewhere, etc. Writing 100% bug free software is near impossible, especially if you don't want to spend millions of dollars to write a "hello world" program. (It's very expensive to have well-trained, well-rested and disciplined programmers that ALWAYS follow best practises, never take shortcuts, have multiple unrelated people audit and review the code, etc. The larger/more complex a program gets, the smaller the chance that there are no bugs. An OS is pretty much the largest program you're going to find. On top of that: don't forget that the big operating systems like Windows, OSX and Linux, all have dozens of years of backwards-compatibility cruft under the hood, dating back to the era of single-user, non-networked systems. When do you think they last audited that happens under the hood in half of the command line tools that haven't been changed for the past two decades? |
| ||
| is it really possible to create an OS that's making it impossible to get infected, accounting for every possible situation? I figure this: while there are certainly vulnerabilities that need to be addressed, the same effort and knowledge that goes into developing a decent antivirus program could just be applied directly to the OS itself. Cut out the middleware. |
| ||
| I'm always amused when people think a computer not connected to the internet couldn't get infected by a virus. Here is a smart way that i have seen to get a virus/trojan on a machine not necessarily connected to internet : a usb drive given as a gift after a presentation of a subject, with the company/person 's name or domain name. To be honest i am not sure if it was the giver of the usb drive who had bad intentions or if it was the provider of the usb drives. One thing is sure, many of them had hidden files with a autorun file and a scareware in it (fake anti malwares detection program) |
| ||
| @Yasha - and then when there are false positives you can't install your software because you have to somehow get approval from the OS manufacturer...sounds like something the OS manufacturer's would love. Personally although I use a virus scanner it is usually only through my own stupidity I've ever downloaded anything unsafe or dodgy that caused me problems....I've learned my lesson..until next time. |
| ||
| @RemiD: indeed heard that is one of the tricks hackers go by; gain info about workers at the company, impersonating someone on the phone and then spread USB sticks with someone's name on at the parking lot. Coworkers picking them up thinking: 'hey this is person blahblah, let's see what's on it before I give it back'. It then executes by for instance autorun, bufferoverrun or another nifty way(dozens to pick from), spreads around the system copying to anyrwhere it can, doing homecalls and installing keyloggers. From then on it's a matter of time before they find a way into higher chain of command. |
| ||
| and then when there are false positives you can't install your software because you have to somehow get approval from the OS manufacturer...sounds like something the OS manufacturer's would love. I don't know how you'd even get a "false positive" out of permission-based security (i.e. the Linux model, underlies OSX too), but chances are it's not "false" at all. End-user stuff shouldn't ever be in a position to modify your system, period; there's no excuse for an application to be written that way. There's absolutely no excuse for an application to be written that way without the current user's knowledge and explicit consent, ever. As I said above, scanning is an after-the-fact hack. Permission either works or it doesn't - there are no "false positives" because it doesn't rely on heuristics; apps either stay within their limits or try to take hostile actions and fail. As for that USB stick thing... if I recall correctly that's exactly how Stuxnet infected the Iranian nuclear program, right? (Windows XP machines disconnected from the internet) |
   |