The Instigator
Computer-Geek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ProgrammingPhilosopher
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Malware will come to an end

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ProgrammingPhilosopher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 63155
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Computer-Geek

Pro

I believe malware will come to an end because many anti-virus programs are being updated year after year with more tight security. In addition, new malware is being developed with the help of previous ones, therefore, in the near future, we will block every malware program.
ProgrammingPhilosopher

Con

I do accept this challenge and I would like to welcome my opponent to this, my first debate. While this might be my first debate, I am far from inexperienced. I will be arguing against the end of Malware/ Spyware/ Viruses/ Worms.
I wish to start this debate by defining a few terms.
Starting with the following,

1. Malware - software that is intended to damage or disable computers and computer systems.
2. Spyware - software that enables a user to obtain covert information about anthers computer activities by transmitting data covertly from their hard drive.
3. Virus - a piece of code that is capable of copying itself and typically has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data.
4. Worm - A computer worm is a standalone malware computer program that replicates itself in order to spread to other computers
5. Anti-virus - (of software) designed to detect and destroy computer viruses.
6. Programming - to write computer programs.

If you can, please in your response, define what you mean by "more tight security."
Debate Round No. 1
Computer-Geek

Pro

By " more tight security " , i meant that are blocking more malware as they rise. And i believe that malware, short for malicious software is used to refer to viruses and spyware.
ProgrammingPhilosopher

Con

I am assuming that this discussion is based around the Windows operating systems.

Being a programmer, I have attempted to make Malware and I have succeeded. I have run Anti-virus scans on it using anything from Avast!, to Norton, to even Microsoft Security Essentials and none of them ever caught onto my malicious key logger. This may be from my ability to program in Assembly, however it in an of it's self is enough to say that the algorithms in most if not all antivirus programs are not advanced enough yet, and I doubt the ever will be advanced enough to wipe out Malware completely.

Programmers are constantly finding and writing new languages, and with that comes new challenges for anti-virus makers. In fact, after a quick Google search I was able to find several ways to work around anti-viruses [1] [2].

I have to say that there will always be a security flaw, in what ever someone makes, you could make a program that has all the latest checks but there will still be a way around it.

[1] http://securityxploded.com...
[2] http://null-byte.wonderhowto.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Computer-Geek

Pro

You do have a point, but i believe in the near future, security researchers will get to a point where they will patch every malicious software, and even anticipate new programming languages that may lead to malware. Just like this startup :

http://www.foxnews.com...
ProgrammingPhilosopher

Con

That was a moderately good article. However the biggest downfall of that start-up is that it only does not protect against completely new threats. That piece of software is based on the "Black hat" hacker reusing code from previous viruses/worms. If the hacker were to not be a 17 year old from Russia, I'm quite sure that they would use their own code, like I do. I can't be bothered to look for old code when I can write my own better, more efficient code and modify it, knowing that it won't break anything.

The idea of the software is very cool, and for the average Joe it will work just fine. But against a real old school hacker, this program might not be as effective. I honestly think that the program will have a mere 80ish% success rate. Not much more, only due to the fact that there is always new innovations.
Debate Round No. 3
Computer-Geek

Pro

Computer-Geek forfeited this round.
ProgrammingPhilosopher

Con

ProgrammingPhilosopher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Computer-Geek

Pro

Computer-Geek forfeited this round.
ProgrammingPhilosopher

Con

ProgrammingPhilosopher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Computer-Geek 3 years ago
Computer-Geek
What about this startup ? http://www.foxnews.com...
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
funnycn
It was a worm in the US military. It cost them A LOT of money. They "removed" it but it might have come back. It just seemed like it went away, but oh no. It still exists...
Posted by Computer-Geek 3 years ago
Computer-Geek
@funnycn i did some research about it, it was Agent.btz . Thank you for this information. Can you give me more information about this matter ?
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
funnycn
Computer geek there is no way to completely get rid of malware. That one worm that was in the US military computers is still around actually. What was it ? Agent.exe or something.

No, there will be no end to malware.
Posted by Computer-Geek 3 years ago
Computer-Geek
@hatshepsut you're with me ?
Posted by hatshepsut 3 years ago
hatshepsut
Ya. Got it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Computer-GeekProgrammingPhilosopherTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited the final round of the debate, thus neither deserve conduct points over the other. I would caution the debaters of forfeiting rounds as it might be considered a conduct penalty. If your opponent forfeits, simply type in "extend arguments" instead of forfeiting yourself. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro presented the claim that malware will eventually come to an end but never really provided any substantial reasoning or proof to validate that claim. On the flip side, Con was able to point out the flaws in the article Pro shared, as well as show evidence of how he was able to bypass security programs himself. By building a case that malware will continue to change just as the programs meant for blocking them will, it'll continue to exist. I am inclined to agree with Con based on the greater amount of evidence he presented. Sources - Con. Utilized more sources than Pro and showed flaws in Pro's source.