I lost my account now its safe cause i recuperate him but i want to know why Steam Guard don't do his job

[☒Soul Glass✧]

Yesterday steam work fine, today my steam was log off and when i try to log in says user or password incorrect i try to recuperate my password i think i forgot her but not my steam guard was down and my email was change i dont autorizate any of this now i acctivate again steam guard i change my password on steam and email but im afraid something like this will happen again my friend list was deleted and comment to. Please help me understand why my steam got stolen with steam guard on and everything?

[Black Blade]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

So you're saying open source is much more vulnerable then closed source?

I find that ironic, considering the top 500 mainframes computer run Linux, which is open source.

It can be less vulnerable, but the thing is in the end "hackers" get to see the code, so they can find the holes in the system from the code itself
In closed source, they need for the most part to guess and reverse engineer the system to find the holes
Open Source can be more secure as its made at times by the community that can secure it and make sure there no holes in it and so on
But in the end, the code is open to see, so someone may be able to find the holes to get it, while someone else may find the way to block it if they see it and report it

If phone companies made sure to update phones with all the latest security that may have been less of an issue, but many really don't take care of it much-leaving phones at times open for a while when a breach is found if they patch at all

In any case, that is kind of going off topic so let's return to the topic at hand, that I assume is finding how it happens here

On antivirus, some big company's give their mobile anti-virus for free in hope that users like it and get it on PC and pay there
For most anti-virus company's the money is not from ad's or data from users, but from an enterprise, mass buys of licnes the home user for them is mostly an opening to the company or a place to detect a virus

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

You are right about how it is meant to be.
But you are in denial if you dont see that there are proven situations where infections might be present even if you did nothing wrong.

And its a bit strange, i suggested a free antivirus without limitations, no ads or battery drain, and you still claim they want the bucks or try to infect you, painting a scenario without proofs, while on the other side even validated events are not enough to see a tiny reason why an antivirus might have helped.

Yes, it's called exploits if you don't do anything and you still get infected, there's nothing much you or the anti-virus software can do there.

You suggested a free anti-virus indeed, but is it open source? Can you look at the code? If you can't, I don't trust it at all. You're either the costumer or the product. if it's "free' there is always a catch, you're most likely the product.

I recommend to use products that are "free for a specific reason":
They have interest to collect "free samples" from victims of infections, to sell a good product to others.
Not just free with ads or limited demos in a way.

And to be honest, i rather accept a reputated antivirus company to be on my device than a backyard criminals malware. Imagine you would have one of those phones..... What would you choose?
Ignore that criminal? Be happy that you dont need antivirus?

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

So you're saying open source is much more vulnerable then closed source?

I find that ironic, considering the top 500 mainframes computer run Linux, which is open source.

Linux gets updates, while your "open source" phone gets more often only the bad side of open source:
Open, no updates

[Visualvengeance]

引用自 Black Blade：

It can be less vulnerable, but the thing is in the end "hackers" get to see the code, so they can find the holes in the system from the code itself
In closed source, they need for the most part to guess and reverse engineer the system to find the holes
Open Source can be more secure as its made at times by the community that can secure it and make sure there no holes in it and so on
But in the end, the code is open to see, so someone may be able to find the holes to get it, while someone else may find the way to block it if they see it and report it

If phone companies made sure to update phones with all the latest security that may have been less of an issue, but many really don't take care of it much-leaving phones at times open for a while when a breach is found if they patch at all

In any case, that is kind of going off topic :D: so let's return to the topic at hand, that I assume is finding how it happens here

On antivirus, some big company's give their mobile anti-virus for free in hope that users like it and get it on PC and pay there
For most anti-virus company's the money is not from ad's or data from users, but from an enterprise, mass buys of licnes the home user for them is mostly an opening to the company or a place to detect a virus

That's true, someone could find an exploit and exploit it, just for it to be fixed within a few hours. Whereas Microsoft never discloses its vulnerabilities to the public and they take time to fix it.
There are 20 year old exploit in Windows, yet Microsoft is not fixing those and let it get worse and worse as time goes on. Windows being a security joke to begin with just shows that.
But, in the end the top 500 computers run on open source and not closed source so this should proove my point that close source is not better in any shape than open source, even if the code is visible.

It's true, big companies take a long time to update their stuff, just like Microsoft for that matter and thus leaving users exposed, but the same can be said about anti-virus programs.
They need to find the malware/viruses and add it to their data base and that takes time too and from my knowledge an anti-virus can't do much about kernel level exploits.

[Visualvengeance]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

Linux gets updates, while your "open source" phone gets more often only the bad side of open source:
Open, no updates

I'm sorry, not sure what you're talking about here.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

Linux gets updates, while your "open source" phone gets more often only the bad side of open source:
Open, no updates

I'm sorry, not sure what you're talking about here.

Millions of phones are "open source", but never get updates. Their open source is rather like a menu list for exploiters

[Visualvengeance]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

[
Millions of phones are "open source", but never get updates. Their open source is rather like a menu list for exploiters

You've no idea how open source works Android uses the 2.4 Linux kernel as its base and many other open source tools. The community of these tools can update their stuff if the third party companies like Goolge and Samsung don't push down those updates to the end user.

[Black Blade]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

That's true, someone could find an exploit and exploit it, just for it to be fixed within a few hours. Whereas Microsoft never discloses its vulnerabilities to the public and they take time to fix it.
There are 20 year old exploit in Windows, yet Microsoft is not fixing those and let it get worse and worse as time goes on. Windows being a security joke to begin with just shows that.
But, in the end the top 500 computers run on open source and not closed source so this should proove my point that close source is not better in any shape than open source, even if the code is visible.

It's true, big companies take a long time to update their stuff, just like Microsoft for that matter and thus leaving users exposed, but the same can be said about anti-virus programs.
They need to find the malware/viruses and add it to their data base and that takes time too and from my knowledge an anti-virus can't do much about kernel level exploits.

This is my last on this topic as again its really off topic and I stop on the 3rd we can move elsewhere if you guys wish to keep talking about it
There two types of antivirus overall one look for a virus by comparing to a defined database of virus
The second one is looking for software that is behaving in ways like a virus (Like this software is trying to copy data from input on a window, and seem to have some hold on the OS main parts... I think something may be fishy rise a flag) and then they mostly also compare to a list of whitelist software that is known to do it

Its true it takes time to add, that is why they need a huge user base to feed them virus data, for example, freebie users, that they can use that data to feed the enterprise area that in the end, most items is the main market (I mean stealing 1000$ from getting a CC number is nice but getting 4M from a large company for giving them back there secret data is much nicer)
Antivirus is not really supposed to block all cases, that be impossible their mission is to block mostly what is known, and for the average user that is most likely what they will meet in most cases
The newer really dangerous ones, after all, are made by the really highly skilled players out there, and most of them will go for bigger fish (enterprise) and will take much less as there fewer than all the smaller guys that make the more known type that in many cases is variety of virus made by the bigger guys

You ask where is the catch in free antivirus, well I give most of the reasons, as I said the big mostly the bigger market for them, the costumes are a data poll to help them protect there bigger users

引用自 Visualvengeance：

You've no idea how open source works Android uses the 2.4 Linux kernel as its base and many other open source tools. The community of these tools can update their stuff if the third party companies like Google and Samsung don't push down those updates to the end user.

Don't know what phone you have, but it can't update it without knowing where to turn
Mobiles, for the most part, are updated by the companies behind them, that in many times leave it down to the mobile provider to do, and many time they don't
I know for example where I live the company give an update for Samsung S6 around a year after it was released by Samsung and released all ready in the US

Edit

If you guys like to keep talking open a topic in my dump group for the subject
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/deep-blade/discussions/3/2949168687311743414/
None need to join to post, its there to keep discusing stuff, if the place it was on cant be used no more

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Visualvengeance：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

[
Millions of phones are "open source", but never get updates. Their open source is rather like a menu list for exploiters

You've no idea how open source works Android uses the 2.4 Linux kernel as its base and many other open source tools. The community of these tools can update their stuff if the third party companies like Goolge and Samsungto push down those updates to the end user.

Yes, google, samsung..... and IF.