Re: Does Linux have viruses?
>From Herman Robak on Saturday, 2004-12-04 at 17:32:32 +0100:
> On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 11:40, Conrad Newton wrote:
>
> > And I am *not* going to blame you for reading your e-mail!
> > I am sick and tired of people who blame the user for opening
> > attachments to his/her mail---why don't we put the blame
> > where it belongs?
> > On the vulnerable programs.
>
> On Linux, I would agree. On Windows, I would not.
>
> If you use Windows, you just have to know that the system
> does not Do What You Mean when it comes to malware/spyware,
> and act accordingly. That's just the sad state of affairs.
> It usually Does What You Say (after you have been conned).
> Of course, a system that very often does not Do What You
> Mean is not really useable. If you want something useable,
> get a Mac!
You describe an ironic state of affairs. The typical Windows user is
less security aware and less computer literate than the typical Linux
user, but his system requires him to be *more* aware. That's not good.
> On Unix, the programs save files to disk with the default
> permissions. That means a file will not have the executable
> bit set, unless the program explicitly asks for it. Unless
> the program is a compiler, that would be a Really Bad Idea,
> so your mail program won't.
> This, it is not the applications that save us from
> executing attachments. It's the system. And there may
> be ways to subvert this. E.g. if the attachment is an
> archive, where file permissions are preserved.
>
>
> Final rant: Whatever the user interface pundits may say
> about "open" and "run" being equivalent, don't listen!!!
> It makes a hell of a difference whether that attachment
> is supposed to be "run" (executed) or "opened" (displayed)!
Do people really say that they are equivalent? I did not
realize that things were that bad. Does XP distinguish
between the two? Can you still have an executable attachment
run automatically, with modern versions of Windows?
Conrad
Reply to: