with Microsoft Windows. The aim for this is not, as several people incline to consider,
because Windows is a feeble system,
with many security holes. If any
brilliant hacker were to look faithfully at
any operating system, he/she would
catch weaknesses. The reason why
so numerous leaks have been originate in
Windows versions over the years, is
because millions of work hours are paid
probing for them.
This time investment is
only done because there is a positive pay-off. Nearby 90% of computer users use
Windows, which interprets into almost 1.62 billion people around the world (guessing
that there are about 1.8 billion active computers in the world today). Finding a ‘good’ safety fleabag and writing approximately competent
malware to exploit it, means a potential ‘market’ of totally those computers.
With the correct malware, it is thinkable to snatch control of those computers,
by fixing them to a botnet, and perusing through the computer to search for private
and economic data that can be castoff for either selling in the secretive
market, or using the found uniqueness for all types of criminal actions.
The cash that is made by
cyber-criminals per year is projected to be of a bigger volume than the
turnover of the drugs industry. In short: it pays to invest time into writing malware
for Windows. Of course there have been, and still are, other popular platforms
besides Windows. Apple’s OS X and Linux for instance, are still growing in popularity.
Many people believe these systems to be far safer than Windows. However, that
is a conclusion that can only be reached with certainty after putting as many
work hours into searching for weaknesses as has been done with Windows. This,
of course, has not happened, so we refrain from celebrating the safety of one
system over another. This theory also applies to mobile platforms. Smartphones
have been around for many years and have gradually grown in popularity. Many different
operating systems co-existed, no one much more popular than the others for many
years. The theory that all of these systems have their weaknesses, but not many
people were looking for them because it would not be worth their time
investment, held up for a long time. But this situation has now changed.
“The opportunity of reaching a huge public with Android, and to snip
money from 75% of all smartphone users, offers a solid intention for malware
writers to make high-quality malware”
In 2010, Android exposed
its first signs of spirits to regulate the mobile world. In 2011, the spirits attested
to be accurate, and they seem to continue that way. According to Gartner, around
75% of all smartphones traded worldwide in the first quarter of 2013 ran on Android
and still the ratio as same as was before. Number two was iOS, with only 18.2%.
The third place was held by Blackberry, with 3%. Of those operating systems,
Android was the single one that raised its market share in that quarter. The
security industry therefore now senses it is safe to say Android is winning
this race. And the malware writers settle. The possibility of reaching a big
public with Android, and to snip money from 75% of all smartphone users, affords
a strong intention for malware writers to make high-quality malware for this specific
Before Android, there
was another nominee that looked to be winning the race “Symbian”. Why was a solid
intention for making malware for Symbian not sufficient for an prevalent burst
of Symbian malware? This is due to a deficiency of means to blowout Symbian
All mobile operating
systems have one thing in common – their architecture is very dissimilar to the
architecture of Microsoft Windows for computers. It seems developers have observed
closely at ‘what went wrong’ with the initial operating systems for PCs and
created systems that are far safer (though there is still plenty of potential
to find weaknesses in them). Dirtying a smartphone and then scattering the
malware further is not easy through traditional assaults. The most effective way
of attack on Symbian attested to be through Bluetooth. But this required
physical closeness of a smartphone that had its Bluetooth connection switched
on for an attack to be fruitful. This reduced the target audience to such a small
number that spending time on writing malware for Symbian was very distasteful.
In the case of Android,
there is a simple solution to scattering malware: apps. They are
downloaded and installed manually by smartphone owners all over the world. A
free local app with typical reputation is downloaded over 10,000 times. International
free apps of typical reputation can get downloaded over 1 million times. Fake apps that seemed
in the Android Market, like the ones that harboured the trojan DroidDream, got
downloaded over 250,000 times in only a few days. Apps are thus a precise beautiful
means of scattering hateful code to smartphones. Social engineering makes apps
look very attractive and motivates users to download and install them.
Android is not the only platform with widespread apps. In fact, Apple
was, far more fruitful with apps than Android. And Apple appeared to be leading for relatively some time, right after
Symbian’s downfall and before Android’s enormous rise. So why has Apple moved
the bullet for all this time? There was an intention, and the apps provided a hypothetical
means for infection. The answer comes down to opportunity.
“Android is a semi open source platform, sense that plentiful of the code
is offered for everyone to see. This makes it far easier to find security pigpens”
Apple and Android have dissimilar processes of app making and app admissions.
In this case, we need to confess that Apple seems to have a harmless system.
That is not to say the operating system of Apple in itself is harmless than
Android. It is, still, more difficult to study A