Re: Linux Virus
t 10:29 PM 3/28/2001 -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:26:39PM +1000, John Griffiths wrote:
>> >IMO, this is nothing completely new or innovative. ASM has been around a
>> >long time, even before viruses. It all boils down to people being smart
>> >enough not to accept attachments form people they don't know, and
>> >especially don't execute programs sent to you randomly over the
>> >internet.
>>
>> Agreed up to a point. But all you need is one person to open it blind and then the rest go out to the adsress book and appear (to the next recipients) to be someone they know. which alters the balance somewhat.
>
>Good point...kind of a "the chain is only as strong as its weakest link"
>scenario :)
>
Also worth noting that the last few headline virusses on windows have done no more damage than a user-level virus operating on a unix machine.
they have been notable in the denial of service aspects of their replication, and the cunning nature of their social engineering.
plus re-insalling my OS is a lot less painful than losing my personal files. (backups notwithstanding)
Reply to: