On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 10:55 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > > Jim Hyslop wrote: > >> Ron Johnson wrote: > >>> There's [...] no need for Symantec anti-virus > >>> products. > >> I'm curious why you say that. I'm fairly new to Linux, but I understand > >> it is more robust and secure than MS Windows. Still, it's not totally > >> secure - nothing made by humans could be. So, do you mean that there's > >> no need for Symantec because of the freely available alternatives, or > >> because Linux just doesn't need anti-virus protection, or something else > >> altogether? > > The main reason is because almost all virus programs target Windows and > will not run on Linux. However, proof of concept viruses have been > shown and when they are, the system is usually patched to not allow that > type of concept to work. > > > > > Linux is not 100% secure. But it has a different attitude to security > > and to viruses. > > > Yes. > > If a virus hits a windows box, it is a personal mishap, but one can buy > > a special software to detect and delete the virus. > > > Unless it wasn't a real mean virus and wiped the user's pc clean. > That's one of the major differences. If one is using a user account in > Linux, a virus would be limited in its ability to damage files outside > of the userspace (ie. /home/username). > > > If a virus hits a linux box (it rarely happens), it is considered a > > security hole. The developers analyse the path the virus got in, fix it > > and neither that nor any virus of similar kind will be able to spread > > again. > > > > This is a simplification, of course, but I hope you get the point. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses > > nice link. It seems that most of the virus and worm programs listed > there are old and no longer a threat. Want a good comparison, take a > look at this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_statistics Most Linux proof of concept virus reports and "proof" require a huge amount of stupidity on the part of the Linux user. The recent "iPod" virus proof means Linux can carry the virus but not actually be infected with it. It also proves that when making "Windows functionality" as part of Linux, it can hurt the users data just as badly as an "rm -rf $HOMEDIR" does when the user does it to their homedir. One of the main reasons Windows is so bad, stupidity on the part of the user compounded by bad systems design and authoring. I see it all the time. Best Buy sees it all the time, selling "rebuild/recovery" services or new machines to these people. Circuit City sees it all the time, selling "recovery/rebuild" services to these people. Dell's support center deals with it all the time, being able to actually charge for support once they find that machines are zombied due to worms or trojans or viruseseses. 97%+ of all the Windows PC problems can be attributed user error of trusting something or somewhere they go to, download or open says it does or gives them. Quite simply, Windows system design and coding allows nearly any user to compromise their own system without admin user rights, whether or not they know they have done it. But the shiny new game (loaded with tons of adware/spyware/keyloggers/activeX things) runs really well, until the next reboot when the computer falls down and starts sucking its thumb in response to the 8000 zombie processes running. Summarizing this, I'd like to think that a Linux user, typically, cannot compromise the system they use, unless they take active steps to destroy it. On the other hand, Windows users, mostly, have no knowledge they are compromising the system they use by downloading and running/installing this great new GAME/Warez they got off a website or the "latest Windows Security Patch" through an e-mail (directly from Microsoft, don't you know.) -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part