Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus, linux malware
RayLopez99
Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
cultists.
RL
http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews
ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
Review (english)
The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
with business support packages available,
means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
are becoming more important. Security
software for Linux is needed not only to
protect the computer itself, but also to
prevent malicious code aimed at other
systems, such as Windows, being passed
through the system. To counter such threats,
ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
review, we installed the 32-bit Business
Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
a Home Edition of the program, and both
Home and Business versions come in 32 and
64-bit versions.
Hadron
It actually explains to you why.
WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?
I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.
RayLopez99
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Linux has viruses and malware. See below.
>
> > Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
> > cultists.
>
> > RL
>
Don't be so pissy Hadron. We still play on the same team. We are
both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. The enemy
of my enemy is my friend. And you are my friend. For now.
And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
details. It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.
Have a nice day,
--
RL Atlanta, Georgia
Hadron
I'm not on a team.
> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
> for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. The enemy
> of my enemy is my friend. And you are my friend. For now.
I dont hate Linux in the slightest. I hate COLA "advocates".
So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?
>
> And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
> details. It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.
No one else came to your conclusion give or take.
RayLopez99
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
> >> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.
>
> > Don't be so pissy Hadron. We still play on the same team. We are
>
> I'm not on a team.
In your mind you are not on a team. But in fact you are, de facto, on
a team: the anti-Linux team. And welcome to the team. We have
already prevailed, and the rest now is mopping up action. At one
point, as a MSFT shareholder in the late 90s (you can see my handle,
which I have not changed, posting to even this newsgroup back then) I
was genuinely afraid of Linux getting market share from MSFT. But no
longer. Open source, like communism, had a short run then died out.
For largely the same reasons as Karl Marx's pseudo-scientific
philosophy.
>
> > both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
> > for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. The enemy
> > of my enemy is my friend. And you are my friend. For now.
>
> I dont hate Linux in the slightest. I hate COLA "advocates".
>
Yes, but you have to admit it's fun to beat up on these retards, who
show a certain monolithic approach to reality. The putative German
Peter Kohlman is typical (I think also his English is limited, so he
tends to stick to stereotypical responses, which is common for EFL
students).
> So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?
>
>
Largely I take it for not "passing on" viruses to Windows based
systems when Linux is acting as a server? Or what is your take?
Honestly I don't care--this is bad news for Linux, and I hope this
thread grows so the keywords "linux has viruses", "linux has malware",
"Linux is unsafe" get indexed by Google to help future users stay away
from Linux.
>
> > And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
> > details. It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.
>
> No one else came to your conclusion give or take.
No, read the response by the Hispanic surname'd poster who supported
me.
Have a nice day,
RL
Norman Peelman
Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit.
>
> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
> usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
> reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?
>
> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.
Which was his intent all along.
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit
David Brown
> On Aug 31, 2:23 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RayLopez99<raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
>>> for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. The enemy
>>> of my enemy is my friend. And you are my friend. For now.
>>
<snip>
>
>> So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?
>>
>
> Largely I take it for not "passing on" viruses to Windows based
> systems when Linux is acting as a server? Or what is your take?
> Honestly I don't care--this is bad news for Linux, and I hope this
> thread grows so the keywords "linux has viruses", "linux has malware",
> "Linux is unsafe" get indexed by Google to help future users stay away
> from Linux.
>
So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
not it is a good choice for them. And you therefore hope that
misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.
I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that. It is
certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
same time.
For what it's worth - which is not a lot, since you are unable to read
words that don't agree with you - the main market for anti-virus
software on Linux is to stop Windows malware passing through. Far and
away the biggest use-case is for Linux mail servers to protect Windows
users.
There have been cases of malware for Linux, but they have all been rare,
spread poorly and done little damage. There are many reasons why there
is little malware on Linux - and therefore little call for anti-malware
software targeting Linux directly.
The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web
applications that often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of
the application, not the OS.
Hadron
> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
> OS.
Whoever told you that nonsense?
Linux can be and is hacked.
It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
jack" attitude is irresponsbile. Linux is as prone to social engineering
attacks as anyone else. Once they have any form of script running its
theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
times). Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
non existent.
And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
riddled mess in many cases.
David Brown
> David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
>
>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>> OS.
>
> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>
> Linux can be and is hacked.
>
Linux can certainly be cracked - but in the majority cases, it is not
due to malware, but simply poor security practices. The most common
example is ssh exploitation with bad passwords. You break into a Linux
machine by trying ssh with username "root", password "root" or "password".
With default installs for most distributions, Linux is fairly secure -
assuming you have picked good passwords. But you can make it insecure
if you open services thoughtlessly. You can also make it /very/ secure
if you want.
> It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
> jack" attitude is irresponsbile.
I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there is also
no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer from malware
and other threats than Windows is. It is certainly possible to make a
Windows system reasonably safe. I run the IT department at my office,
and almost all desktops are Windows - we have had very few incidents of
malware, and no successful cracks, attacks, or worms. But it is both
realistic and responsible to say that for a normal desktop/laptop Linux
user using a modern distro, you simply don't have to worry about
malware. You don't have to install anti-virus software, third-party
firewalls, spyware detection software, etc. You don't have to keep
these up-to-date or pay for subscriptions. You don't even have to keep
your system up-to-date (though it is easy to do so) - although security
holes are found and fixed, they are seldom exploited so your risks are low.
If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about your
Linux security. If you are a typical home user - install Linux and
forget about security and malware.
> Linux is as prone to social engineering
> attacks as anyone else.
No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a different
matter if there were a higher percentage of people using Linux on
desktops. But the majority of people using Linux are people who have
made an active choice to use it - these are people who are more
technically competent, and less likely to follow instructions
thoughtlessly. Linux users are by no means immune to social engineering
- but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the average
Windows user. And of course, there is the old "common target" argument
- since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing,
"update your paypal account", and other social engineering efforts
target Windows users and not Linux.
> Once they have any form of script running its
> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
> times).
Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that. You
still have the "root access" limitation, however. Without root access,
any malicious script will only be able to read or affect the user's
files, not the rest of the system. Of course, it's the user's files
that are important data, so that's still no small matter. But it is
nevertheless a help - when your teenager borrows your machine to visit
dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but not yours.
One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things
like "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root
privileges. But even then, the user will have to manually enter their
password (or the root password). And the non-homogeneity of Linux means
that an attacker would need to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.
It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to
make Linux malware that actually does something useful (to the author)
and spreads successfully. Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users
with Linux will be high enough that someone will make the effort. But
for now, the biggest malware danger on desktop Linux is probably that
Wine is getting so good at running Windows programs that it happily runs
many types of Windows malware...
> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
> non existent.
>
> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>
The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other
system software) are obscure - they are typically things like race
conditions triggered by weird malformed network packets. It is very
rare that such vulnerabilities can be reliably exploited in practice,
and even rarer that they /are/ exploited.
It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make
sense for a normal desktop user to worry about them.
> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
> riddled mess in many cases.
>
Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and
that /application/ has plenty of security holes. No arguments there.
Wolf K
[snip the blather]
Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager on
the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an urgent
message to install them right now.
Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.
a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and execute,
it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most single-user
systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one below sudo,
usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's
surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links, etc.
b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth
attacks, no matter what the OS.
So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be surprised
at that?
Ciao,
Wolf K.
Hadron
> On 31/08/2011 14:15, Hadron wrote:
>> David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
>>
>>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>>> OS.
>>
>> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>>
>> Linux can be and is hacked.
>>
>
> Linux can certainly be cracked - but in the majority cases, it is not due to
> malware, but simply poor security practices. The most common example is ssh
> exploitation with bad passwords. You break into a Linux machine by trying ssh
> with username "root", password "root" or "password".
>
> With default installs for most distributions, Linux is fairly secure -
> assuming you have picked good passwords. But you can make it insecure if you
> open services thoughtlessly. You can also make it /very/ secure if
> you want.
Agreed. But that is not the issue.
>
>> It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
>> jack" attitude is irresponsbile.
>
> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there is also no
> doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer from malware and other
> threats than Windows is. It is certainly possible to make a Windows system
> reasonably safe. I run the IT department at my office, and almost all desktops
> are Windows - we have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful
> cracks, attacks, or worms. But it is both realistic and responsible to say that
> for a normal desktop/laptop Linux user using a modern distro, you simply don't
> have to worry about malware. You don't have to install anti-virus software,
> third-party firewalls, spyware detection software, etc. You don't have to keep
> these up-to-date or pay for subscriptions. You don't even have to keep your
> system up-to-date (though it is easy to do so) - although security holes are
> found and fixed, they are seldom exploited so your risks are low.
>
> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about your Linux
> security. If you are a typical home user - install Linux and forget about
> security and malware.
>
>> Linux is as prone to social engineering
>> attacks as anyone else.
>
> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a different matter
> if there were a higher percentage of people using Linux on desktops. But the
> majority of people using Linux are people who have made an active choice to use
> it - these are people who are more technically competent, and less
> likely to
I actually made that point. I wont check if you snipped it since you're
clearly not just spouting nonsense and only want to clarify rather than
distort which is more the norm in COLA. But Linux itself is as
prone. The users are less likely to apply it though.
> follow instructions thoughtlessly. Linux users are by no means immune to social
> engineering - but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the
> average Windows user. And of course, there is the old "common target" argument
> - since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing, "update your
> paypal account", and other social engineering efforts target Windows users and
> not Linux.
That and the old joke that most Linux users are too tight to buy
anything with a credit card online anyway ;)
>
>> Once they have any form of script running its
>> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
>> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
>> times).
>
> Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that. You still
> have the "root access" limitation, however. Without root access, any malicious
> script will only be able to read or affect the user's files, not the rest of the
> system. Of course, it's the user's files that are important data, so that's
> still no small matter. But it is nevertheless a help - when your
> teenager
I am glad you recognise that. Most COLA "fanbois" dont.
> borrows your machine to visit dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but
> not yours.
Well, true and not so true. If he has some script cronned into his user
account and your files are visible, which they frequently are, prepre to
have them read and transmitted.
>
> One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things like
> "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root privileges. But
> even then, the user will have to manually enter their password (or the root
> password). And the non-homogeneity of Linux means that an attacker would need
> to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.
Or a user space script prompt for a sudo password and keeps it... Its
not too hard ;)
>
> It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to make Linux
> malware that actually does something useful (to the author) and spreads
> successfully. Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users with Linux will be
> high enough that someone will make the effort. But for now, the biggest malware
> danger on desktop Linux is probably that Wine is getting so good at running
> Windows programs that it happily runs many types of Windows malware...
I think Wine is getting worse and is doomed. Virtualisation is taking over.
>
>> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
>> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
>> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
>> non existent.
>>
>> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
>> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
>> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>>
>
> The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other system
> software) are obscure - they are typically things like race conditions triggered
> by weird malformed network packets. It is very rare that such vulnerabilities
> can be reliably exploited in practice, and even rarer that they /are/
> exploited.
And all down to user base.
>
> It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make sense
> for a normal desktop user to worry about them.
Not at the moment no.
>
>> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
>> riddled mess in many cases.
>>
>
> Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and that
> /application/ has plenty of security holes. No arguments there.
As are many of the Apps which run on Linux desktops. Do users really
know what the plugins for Amarok etc etc are doing? No.
Thanks for your reasonable and accurate response. It did not differ much
from what I said.
David Brown
(I didn't snip your comment about low "naive desktop consumer usage of
Linux" - just re-expressed it in a more relevant way.)
We agree on the main point - (current) Linux users are less likely to be
prone to social engineering. But I also think Linux itself is less
vulnerable, since "activating" social engineering attacks usually takes
more clicks, password entries, etc., in Linux. More clicks and effort
means more time for common sense to kick in and stop you. The
difference here between Windows and Linux has changed over the years,
however.
Windows has traditionally had the attitude that things should be as easy
as possible - things should happen automatically without user
intervention, or with a minimum of clicks and choices. The good side of
this is obvious, but it has a bad side too - it has made life as easy as
possible for malware authors. Thus you had an email client that would
happily auto-open attachments, autorun.inf on CDs and usb sticks, etc.,
etc. Windows has got gradually saner in this respect, and obviously it
helps to use non-MS email and web clients (though again MS's clients
have improved). Linux, on the other hand, has got gradually easier in
this way (with apt:// links as an example). So social engineering
attacks are harder than they used to be on Windows, and easier than they
used to be on Linux - but I still think Linux is safer here.
>> follow instructions thoughtlessly. Linux users are by no means immune to social
>> engineering - but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the
>> average Windows user. And of course, there is the old "common target" argument
>> - since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing, "update your
>> paypal account", and other social engineering efforts target Windows users and
>> not Linux.
>
> That and the old joke that most Linux users are too tight to buy
> anything with a credit card online anyway ;)
>
>>
>>> Once they have any form of script running its
>>> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
>>> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
>>> times).
>>
>> Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that. You still
>> have the "root access" limitation, however. Without root access, any malicious
>> script will only be able to read or affect the user's files, not the rest of the
>> system. Of course, it's the user's files that are important data, so that's
>> still no small matter. But it is nevertheless a help - when your
>> teenager
>
> I am glad you recognise that. Most COLA "fanbois" dont.
>
>> borrows your machine to visit dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but
>> not yours.
>
> Well, true and not so true. If he has some script cronned into his user
> account and your files are visible, which they frequently are, prepre to
> have them read and transmitted.
>
That depends on the distro - many distros make user's home directories
unreadable to others. It's certainly a possibility that the malicious
script can read other files - but that's generally not as bad as being
able to write them.
>>
>> One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things like
>> "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root privileges. But
>> even then, the user will have to manually enter their password (or the root
>> password). And the non-homogeneity of Linux means that an attacker would need
>> to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.
>
> Or a user space script prompt for a sudo password and keeps it... Its
> not too hard ;)
>
>>
>> It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to make Linux
>> malware that actually does something useful (to the author) and spreads
>> successfully. Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users with Linux will be
>> high enough that someone will make the effort. But for now, the biggest malware
>> danger on desktop Linux is probably that Wine is getting so good at running
>> Windows programs that it happily runs many types of Windows malware...
>
> I think Wine is getting worse and is doomed. Virtualisation is taking over.
>
There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches - it's good to
have the choice.
>>
>>> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
>>> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
>>> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
>>> non existent.
>>>
>>> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
>>> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
>>> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>>>
>>
>> The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other system
>> software) are obscure - they are typically things like race conditions triggered
>> by weird malformed network packets. It is very rare that such vulnerabilities
>> can be reliably exploited in practice, and even rarer that they /are/
>> exploited.
>
> And all down to user base.
>
No, not /all/ down to the user base. It is mostly a matter of a better
design and a better implementation of the OS. The smaller user base -
and therefore fewer attackers, and fewer hosts to spread - is an extra
bonus that makes Linux even more secure.
It's a myth that Linux security is due to its small user base. It
doesn't take much understanding, or much web research, to see that. It's
no better a claim than if Linux fans say that Windows is full of holes
and a security joke. Low user base is a mixed blessing - few bad guys
finding holes, fewer good guys finding holes.
>>
>> It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make sense
>> for a normal desktop user to worry about them.
>
> Not at the moment no.
>
>>
>>> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
>>> riddled mess in many cases.
>>>
>>
>> Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and that
>> /application/ has plenty of security holes. No arguments there.
>
> As are many of the Apps which run on Linux desktops. Do users really
> know what the plugins for Amarok etc etc are doing? No.
>
One big difference is that with normal Linux distros, you get most
(often all) of your software from the distro, with packages that are
signed by the distro, and for which the distro maintainers have the
source code. While the quality of the security checking varies with the
distro, it is much harder (not impossible, but harder) to get malware
into the package.
With Android, people get software from all over, and most of it is in
closed-source form. There is no one doing any sort of checking on the
security of the packages (at least, no one doing a good enough job). In
this sense, it is more like Windows where people get software from
random web sites, with no idea if they contain malware or security
problems, and no good way of checking.
> Thanks for your reasonable and accurate response. It did not differ much
> from what I said.
I think we differ more than you imply here - but I try to be realistic
rather than fanatic.
The Natural Philosopher
> On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
> [snip the blather]
>
> Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager on
> the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an urgent
> message to install them right now.
>
> Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.
>
> a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and execute,
> it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most single-user
> systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one below sudo,
> usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's
> surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links, etc.
>
> b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth
> attacks, no matter what the OS.
>
there is however a subtle difference with linux, and that is there are a
lot of distros, and kernel versions and indeed 32 and 64 bit mixtures
out there.
Depending on the vulnerability you are exploiting, that may narrow the
target base to a very small percentage of Linux distros indeed.
Thats for real rootkit stuff
I accept that malware that makes - say firefox or java - do something
like dumping your hone directory somewhere - is a different kettle of
fish. But I think if that happened to me id notice the odd 30 gigs of
data spewing outwards..
As for downloadable executables, well the free aspect and te siource
code aspects is a real barrier. when I go looking for free odd bits of
code, chances are its so reputable - like Mozilla that i can trust it
or its doesn't work without me compiling it.
The click/download/install thing simply isn't Linux. It IS OSX and it
IS windows however.
> So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be surprised
> at that?
>
In principle everything is. What is interesting is in what ways and how
much, and the answer is 'few, and far between' for many reasons.
Which makes the statement 'its far safer than windows or OSX' eaningful.
> Ciao,
> Wolf K.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> read more »
Read less. Less is more and you are a bore.
RL
RayLopez99
wrote:
> So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
> in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
> not it is a good choice for them. And you therefore hope that
> misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
> will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.
>
> I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that. It is
> certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
> pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
> same time.
<snip>
Ad hominem noted. Rest of your post not read.
RL
JEDIDIAH
> David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
>
>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>> OS.
>
> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>
> Linux can be and is hacked.
You pretty much have to lie through your teeth to make the original
argument seem plausible. You have to depend on your audience not fully
understanding what's being discussed.
--
iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
/ | \
Peter Köhlmann
He was actually very nice to you. In reality, you are dumber than a stump
David Brown
"Ad hominem" usually refers to an attempt to discredit someone's
argument by making a personal attack, especially one that has no
justification (examples include your referral to Linux advocates as
"retards"). I gave plenty of on-topic comments to your arguments - the
personal comments are just a summary of the character you show through
your Usenet postings, but I don't claim your arguments are false because
you are a moronic sycophant. Your arguments are (for the most part)
false because they are nonsense.
And I find the idea of actively spreading lies in the attempt to make
money despicable.
7
> Linux
10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.
Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
Dustin
news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
a whole.
--
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
Dustin
news:r6CdnRyPr-6XqsPT...@lyse.net:
> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there is
> also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer
> from malware and other threats than Windows is. It is certainly
I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT
systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which is
responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux isn't
any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being deployed
and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the admin who's
responsible if security is amiss.
> possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe. I run the IT
> department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
> have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
> attacks, or worms. But it is both realistic and responsible to say
Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser
vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them
surf with administrator rights.
> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about
> your Linux security. If you are a typical home user - install Linux
> and forget about security and malware.
The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often.
It's proprietary junk.
> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a
> different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
> Linux on desktops. But the majority of people using Linux are
> people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people
Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
illusion of better security as a result.
Big Steel
Patched? Linux is not perfect? OMG! I thought Linux was written by the
gods and it's perfect according to those that hump Linux like a dog like
you 7. :)
Dustin
Big Steel
> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
> a whole.
>
>
>
All you have to do is look at Android Linux being humped like a dog by
malware writers, because the masses are using Android.
David Brown
There was one famous Linux virus. It was an email that read something
like this :
Hi! This is the Linux virus. Please delete a bunch of your files at
random, then pass me on to everyone in your address book.
It was the only Linux virus that had any noticeable circulation.
David Brown
> David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
> news:r6CdnRyPr-6XqsPT...@lyse.net:
>
>> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there
>> is also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/
>> safer from malware and other threats than Windows is. It is
>> certainly
>
> I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT
> systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which
> is responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux
> isn't any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being
> deployed and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the
> admin who's responsible if security is amiss.
>
I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of OS
makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a solid
network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet and the
desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make sure users
have decent training in security, then you are pretty safe. But with
Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it directly to any
network I want, and let anyone use it as they want. Very roughly
speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep Windows safe - you
have to know what you are doing to make Linux unsafe.
>> possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe. I run the IT
>> department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
>> have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
>> attacks, or worms. But it is both realistic and responsible to
>> say
>
> Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser
> vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them
> surf with administrator rights.
>
Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few. The most annoying
to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus. We had a
worm that got into a few machines - the source was an employee who
brought in their laptop to download a windows service pack that blocked
said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at home. Needless to say
that employee got a keelhauling for connecting an outside machine to the
company network.
We also had a few spyware and porn/casino pop-up problems, until we
(that is, I) banned Internet Exploder about 10 years ago.
>> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry
>> about your Linux security. If you are a typical home user -
>> install Linux and forget about security and malware.
>
> The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often.
> It's proprietary junk.
PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.
However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the user
interface is normally on a PC. Mess up them, and you've messed up the
plant.
>
>> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a
>> different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
>> Linux on desktops. But the majority of people using Linux are
>> people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people
>
> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
> illusion of better security as a result.
No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
(The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
threats even more.
Chris Ahlstrom
Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout the
years, isn't it?
Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the globe, from
its roots with a telephony provider.
Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots with
"Traf-O-Data".
That's a key difference.
--
In a display of perverse brilliance, Carl the repairman mistakes a room
humidifier for a mid-range computer but manages to tie it into the network
anyway.
-- The 5th Wave
Big Steel
> David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
>> (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
>> Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
>> threats even more.
>
> Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout the
> years, isn't it?
>
> Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the globe, from
> its roots with a telephony provider.
>
> Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots with
> "Traf-O-Data".
>
> That's a key difference.
>
Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a
damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite.
Bobbie Sellers
QNX is the bulletproof high reliability proprietary OS used to control
power plants and other vital functions. We nearly got to use
it with the Amiga but the Amiga IP holders(Gateway at the time) finally
could not agree with the QNX company. You can Google QNX which was
a Canadian company the last time I looked.
Linux by the way is more secure than Windows OSes I have
seen but the NT I have never used. XP had rotten internal security
and still came setup to be infected. XP Pro was supposed to have
better internal security between accounts but it did not. Linux
does have real accounts secured from each other. Only the root
user can undertake certain tasks. That alone should put it
in lots of family homes and networks. Social hacking or
subversions getting passwords and other data by subterfuge
can easily be done by the charmingly malicious.
But any PC with access to bootable media can
be opened like a book and read at leisure if the relevant
contents are not encrypted. With multi-core, multiprocessor
units available to a well-funded agency solving encryption
may not take more than a day.
Revolutionaries better use paper for planning,
quill pens and liquid ink or brushes and ink cakes.
bliss
JEDIDIAH
Android suffers from trojans in binaries distributed from dodgey
3rd party app stores in China. It's not quite the same thing as what
has plagued Windows and DOS since the dawn of time.
Although there is the occasional PC game or app that comes with
conveniently infected installation disks.
JEDIDIAH
> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
> a whole.
You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
So where's all the malware?
Big Steel
<snipped>
JEDIDIAH crawl back to your goddman hole where you belong. Nothing you
have to say is of any interest to me. You are a typical COLA clown with
nothing but excuse, after excuse and excuses I am not interested in what
you have to say.
Snit
PM:
> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>> a whole.
>
> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
Mac users, on average, are better educated than Windows users... and, I
believe, have higher IQs.
Of course, this is likely associated with Macs not being found at the low
end, but so be it. :)
> So where's all the malware?
There is far less than their is for Android Linux.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Wolf K
[...]
> Revolutionaries better use paper for planning,
> quill pens and liquid ink or brushes and ink cakes.
>
> bliss
We're not quite there yet, schools still teach readin', writin' and
'rithmetic.
Wolf K.
Wolf K
The last update on the G4 Powerbook here was a security update.
_Somebody's_ worried.
Wolf K.
RayLopez99
wrote:
But there was a Windows variant many moon sago that got me once (and
I'm smarter than you) that said "if you have this system file,
XYZ.sys, delete it since it is a virus"--I did so, making a backup
copy of the file, thinking I could restore the system, and ended up
having to do a clean reinstall. But it was a home system where I had
backed-up the data so I lost nothing but half a day reinstalling.
RL
RayLopez99
>
> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
> illusion of better security as a result.
>
> --
That's so true Dustin. Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
share.
BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
(administrator rights).
As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when,
as you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD
that was a virus--no fault then of Windows.
RL
RayLopez99
Hahaha! Good one Big Steel. That's right, Dustin is a clown who has
written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of the
leading programmers in the world. Chris Ahlstrom is so dumb that (as
he admitted in COLA) he once gave out vital personal information about
his teenage daughter and his wife to an internet stalker. Or at least
that was the impression I got. A real family man, Piss Angstrom is.
RL
JeffM
>Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>
The notion of a (for-profit) corporation selling such a product
reminds me of the guy who bought a magic stone
to carry with him to keep away tigers.
So far, no tigers within 20 miles.
(Note: The product isn't available in Siberia or Bengal.)
The ONLY need for an anti-whatever app on a Linux box
is to catch files with WINDOZE-SPECIFIC infections.
(if the box is a relay point for such files, e.g. a mail server
or a habitual sharer of files from who-knows-where).
Several years back, I remember reading on Slashdot
about a company that ran all Linux boxes.
Their customers started bitching at them
about getting infections from the company's server.
It had never occurred to them to
scan the content passing thru their system for Windoze badware
as none of their own boxes had ever flinched whatsoever.
FromTheRafters
FromTheRafters
sulfnbk.exe - Long Filename support file - Icon looked like a blackboard
with writing on it. This one was first, and unlike the other one this
one was a needed file.
<http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2001-042411-3943-99&tabid=2>
jdbgmgr.exe - Java Debug Manager - Teddy bear Icon. The Bugbear worm was
active during this time which made the threatening teddy seem to
substantiate the hoax.
<http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2002-041208-2143-99&tabid=2>
FromTheRafters
> 7 wrote:
>> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>
> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Sep 1, 3:26 am, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> --
>
> That's so true Dustin. Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
> share being the obscurity.
A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles and
security by opennes, as in Open Source and (optionally) hardened by the
NSA.
> At one time people suggested using Firefox
> because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
> exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
> share.
It still beats the crap out of browsers which
a) do not conform to standards (like IE)
b) are vulnerable to "drive-by-downloads"
c) has security updates about once or twice a year which (mostly) get
ignored by ignorant users.
> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
> (administrator rights).
You can, but it's unwise.
> As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when, as
> you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD that
> was a virus--no fault then of Windows.
Sure it was. the OS should never allow you to run software from external
(i.e. untrusted) storage. One hurray for POSIX's proper access control!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
< I know how to do SPECIAL EFFECTS!! >
------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
news:j3nrsa$1et$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>
What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers? Got a
reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
marketshare than Linux.
Hadron
Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
Maybe Rexx told him?
David Brown
> "Ezekiel"<ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>
>> "Kleuskes& Moos"<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
Maybe he was looking at webservers. Of course, it's difficult to be
sure how to count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic
numbers, count virtual servers, etc.? Certainly it's easy to find solid
references showing Linux having 70%+ of the webserver market.
For "normal" servers, it's a different matter - I would expect Windows
server to have a higher market share. Of course, it is even more
difficult to judge those numbers, since many Linux systems are installed
later rather than bought with the server. And again you have the
questions of virtual machines - it's easier and cheaper to have lots of
Linux virtual machines on the same hardware than to have lots of Windows
virtual machines, so the relative shares will be different if you count
physical systems or virtual systems (and of course virtual systems can
be mixed too). Personally, I'd say that Linux is a standard mainstream
choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop, where it is a
niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
For high-end servers and mainframes, IBM System z dominates - running
either z/OS or Linux. And for supercomputers, of course, Linux is
almost the only choice. But these categories don't add up much in numbers.
Peter Köhlmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Idiot
You are really a nasty piece of Snit, Hadron Larry
Hadron
> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>> "Ezekiel"<ze...@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Kleuskes& Moos"<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>
>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers? Got a
>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>
>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>
>> Maybe Rexx told him?
>
> Maybe he was looking at webservers. Of course, it's difficult to be
> sure how to
Maybe he was pulling numbers out of his backside which is normal
MO. "servers and mobiles".
> count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic numbers, count
> virtual
No its not. Walk into offices and companies and look. Most small to
midsize use Windows servers primarily because most of them use
exchange. Sad but true. Many people run Apache on Windows too - why I
dont know ;)
> servers, etc.? Certainly it's easy to find solid references showing Linux
> having 70%+ of the webserver market.
You have a link for this? Certainly Linux servers running apache,
mysql/postgres, exim etc are very attractive and very good value. I use
them. But I dont make claims that 70% of business servers are linux
which was the cock and bull above. Sorry, but I detest these loonies and
their crazy figures and predictions of MS Doom. Google up "Roy
Schestowitz" and you will see.
chrisv
>Personally, I'd say that Linux is a standard mainstream
>choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop, where it is a
>niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
I can't imagine why it wouldn't. It comes with everything you need
for free, unlike piecing-together an (expensive) Windows server...
The Natural Philosopher
linux hosts, so its a bit of a moot point innit?
The Natural Philosopher
Hadron
Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.
It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
should know what it refers too.
Let me give you a little lesson in basic Math.
10 companies want to buy an OS.
MS sells a copy of win 7 to 9 of them. MS has 90% of the "market". 10%
is left. Apple or Linux can get in there...
See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope. I realise you
might need to think outside of your little box a little but do
try. Thinking is SO important. Sticking your head in the sand and
whistling dixie is no way to go through son.
chrisv
>By definition,
By your (incorrect) definition.
The Natural Philosopher
Well no, they cant. They want to buy an OS. You cant BUY linux.
Ergo if they wanted to bu one, they wouldnt pick Linux would they>
> See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope. I realise you
> might need to think outside of your little box a little but do
> try. Thinking is SO important. Sticking your head in the sand and
> whistling dixie is no way to go through son.
You really crack me up dude.
The Natural Philosopher
chrisv
Wrong.
Big Steel
> "Kleuskes& Moos"<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
The Linux clowns just fabricate crap up without an ounce of evidence to
backup their lip-service. Linux is no more leading the O/S server market
at 70% than the man in the moon. The only thing Linux servers are
leading in usage is Web servers.
But if facts are shown that MS is leading in total market share in
server O/S(s), the clowns come up with unjustifiable lip-service that MS
fabricated the numbers or article posted by a site is owned by MS.
Big Steel
You can't post facts to a Linux NG. It's a worthless effort. The clowns
are too far gone mentally to face in thing in reality.
chrisv
>Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.
>>
>> It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
>> should know what it refers too.
>>
>> See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope.
>> (further snot snipped)
>
>You really crack me up dude.
See? "Hadron" is a troll. "Hadron" is a fscking arsehole who can't
just disagree with you, he has to foam at the mouth and spew
invective. He's a genuine POS..
Note, however, if you were a fellow Linux-hater, "Hadron" would *not*
have attacked you. "Hadron" is a Windows advocate and *only* attacks
users and advocates of Linux and FOSS.
--
"MS is installed for a reason : people wanted it." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
Big Steel
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.
>>>
>>> It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
>>> should know what it refers too.
>>>
>>> See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope.
>>> (further snot snipped)
>>
>> You really crack me up dude.
>
> See? "Hadron" is a troll. "Hadron" is a fscking arsehole who can't
> just disagree with you, he has to foam at the mouth and spew
> invective. He's a genuine POS..
>
> Note, however, if you were a fellow Linux-hater, "Hadron" would *not*
> have attacked you. "Hadron" is a Windows advocate and *only* attacks
> users and advocates of Linux and FOSS.
>
It's the pot calling the kettle black. chrisv eats so much shit around
here as he kisses COLA and Linux ass and attacks anything not Linux he
has his own shit-eating-spoon for it.
Wolf K
> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
> (administrator rights).
You can anything at any permissions level you like. It's klutzier to do
this with Windows than with Linux, is all.
Wolf K.
RayLopez99
What the hell are you talking about? What language do you speak? You
think you're clever? "Bengal"? There's a region of the world called
"Bengal" in your mind? Sure if you Google it there's at least one
such street or place, but it's not a common name of anywhere. And
what's this: "had ever flinched whatsoever"? Who are you to talk
slang, like some sort of penny-ante guru? You a dime store
philosopher or something? Nothing you said in your post was either
coherent or made your point--kind of like your pathetic little life.
Get the fuck out of my New Messages URL you bozo.
Linux user. Figures.
RL
FromTheRafters
Indeed, you can also run as administrator in Windows and runas an LUA,
your browser.
But I can't think of why anyone would, and I doubt it is as safe as just
running as an LUA in the first place.
Hadron
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.
>>>
>>> It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
>>> should know what it refers too.
>>>
>>> See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope.
>>> (further snot snipped)
>>
>>You really crack me up dude.
>
> See? "Hadron" is a troll. "Hadron" is a fscking arsehole who can't
> just disagree with you, he has to foam at the mouth and spew
> invective. He's a genuine POS..
It seems chrisv has a pea brain too. And that is simply full of bile. No
wonder he's known as "turd". Apologies to the other groups : these
people are what pass for "Linux advocates" in COLA.
Kari Laine
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>> a whole.
>
> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>
> So where's all the malware?
Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
to original developers - that's how.
--
Kari Laine
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOX6t7AAoJEPjW/Kjfref2elQH/0KfZgituWRuzVcNZfSefFFJ
Q1PL971ydaLJ3GsrI6P0siVhhe0rF1GUl611IC/WobgcBXSwJ4GzC94byMRefwp6
Jo7x/Nfxbr0WYf8ZvJ55cQFUSRvUX6SW67gbcpNDoF7x/qGjWtI9c7C9ghRMx3O5
oTGbvxBUUw+uWtoh83z7JPZadYMrk9C/E6sVgoSkcJsSmb2HkGN3Z0tnjW/4gXo/
+xjNstpxqBw4nzEj0noSwXros1H7Mk8LVzNA2Vnj1IunKGIP1i7bsKKVczXwq2Vj
X3AVVV/QVIsFqL9GG3l7o1UpwYp5wxiT+NtXPgYuqn3C+/nUMniFPUBEJNB5Pus=
=wlk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hadron
> On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>>> a whole.
>>
>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>
>> So where's all the malware?
>
> Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
> BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
> to original developers - that's how.
LOL! You can't be so fucking stupid as this. I know its you Flatty!
Snit
9/1/11 8:57 AM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6v...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>>> a whole.
>>
>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>
>> So where's all the malware?
>
> Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
> BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
> to original developers - that's how.
Stole?
Huh?
How the heck do you figure? And do you think Linux distro managers are
guilty of the same form of theft? How about those who pirate music and
movies?
--
🙈🙉🙊
Big Steel
Laine is a real piece of work. Soon Laine will pass 7 with its ramblings
and babble -- count on it. :)
David Brown
There are only two things Linux is missing before it covers the needs of
the majority of servers. The sales and marketing muscle that Windows
server (and added software) can provide, and the profit for the server
and software sales people. It's often hard for sales people (and their
employing company) to make much profit selling hardware - the margins
are very low. But they can get good margins on the software and
support. If they were to recommend zero-cost Linux software, they only
make money from the installation and support - and even that is much
less than with Windows server software since it is faster (your "yum
install postgresql-server" will be completed before the Windows guy has
got the cellophane wrap off the MSSQL Server box, never mind figured out
how many client access licenses you are going to need).
So suppliers prefer to sell Windows systems and commercial software.
David Brown
You've lost a little in the snipping. I haven't claimed that 70% of
business servers are Linux - I claimed it is easy to find surveys saying
that something in the region of 70% of webservers are running Linux (or
that 70% of websites are running on Linux, which is not quite the same
thing). Such surveys often break down by web server - but most
webservers other than IIS are running on Linux.
I agree with you about office servers - Windows probably has about 2 or
3 times the market share of Linux for such systems.
Hadron
No it doesnt. There are oodles of proprietary windows only server
applictions developed over years for large companies. You do know what a
server is dont you? We realise you're a foul mouhted, MS hating
ignoramous but dont think your basement view covers that of the world's
businesses - It doesnt. Yes, for "general" tasks such as file serving,
rdbms, mta etc etc it can be and is fine. But server do a LOT more than
this in real industry.
Your lack of knowledge of the real world is telling.
The Natural Philosopher
Hadron
As I said : you're a pea brain. Support is not just about things "going
wrong". The cost of Windows is next to nothing compared to annual salary
per operator/user etc. The cost of internal SOFTWARE development to
migrate from Windows to Linux can be and is HUGE. In fact good Linux
specialists could, it can be argued, earn more since they are far less
prolific as qualified Windows admins and sw developers once a
company decides to move to "free" Linux.
You know, just shouting "linux is cheap and great" isn't advocacy. It
just makes you look like a clueless twit. Which is apt.
The Natural Philosopher
>
> You know, just shouting "linux is cheap and great" isn't advocacy. It
> just makes you look like a clueless twit. Which is apt.
>
>
advocating anything.
I was merely remarking on the fact that linux once set up needs very
little maintenance.
JeffM
>>>Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>
>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>
>http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>
Yawn.
That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
As I said before:
::The ONLY need for an anti-whatever app on a Linux box
::is to catch files with WINDOZE-SPECIFIC infections.
::(if the box is a relay point for such files, e.g. a mail server
::or a habitual sharer of files from who-knows-where).
To paraphrase 7:
Apply the patches available for your Linux box and you'll be fine.
JeffM
>>reminds me of the guy who bought a magic stone
>>(Note: The product isn't available in Siberia or Bengal.)
>>
>You think you're clever?
>
FromTheRafters
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>
>> JeffM wrote:
>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>
> Yawn.
> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
for' and I provided you with many.
Back-peddle all you want.
[Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
Big Steel
LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)
JeffM
>So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>looks for' and I provided you with many.
>
What part of "infect" don't you understand.
...or are you trying to use the Typhoid Mary meme
(which has already been acknowledged)?
...as has the "dancing bunnies" meme.
A page full of Win32 malware was NOT what was requested.
Everyone already knows what a steaming pile Windoze is.
FromTheRafters
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
[snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
FromTheRafters
I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what
was asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow
highlighted portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.
...don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more
about infections and operating systems than he does.
Bullwinkle.
If you must toot your own horn, you are not
near as good as you claim.
"FromTheRafters" <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:j3pj0k$erl$1...@dont-email.me...
Hadron
JeffM is COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
Bjørn Steensrud
Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
ESET?
Those I checked were trojan attacks, it was explained how they attacked
OS/X, but not a word about how they could get into Linux except by social
engineering. AV systems do not protect against stupidity.
Big Steel
Look man, you are dealing with a COLA regular and not a of one of them
is sane. COLA and the sign post just up ahead reads "welcome to the
Twilight Zone". :)
Big Steel
> There is that bd big head again.
>
> If you must toot your own horn, you are not
> near as good as you claim.
>
Bulltinkle, you would be accepted in COLA with all your Tinker Bell news
clippings posts. They would love you for them and toss roses at your feet.
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz can be your best bud/pal in COLA, because that's
all he does
is post news clippings too. :)
Bullwinkle.
handouts.
Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information
A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually.
"Big Steel" <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in message
news:RbidnWkiUsrTXf3T...@earthlink.com...
Big Steel
> We don't accept COLA .Unlike you we don't do government
> handouts.
>
> Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information
>
> A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually.
>
>
Your jackassness proceeds you Bulltinkel. Comp.os.linux.advocacy = COLA
you clown.
FromTheRafters
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
Wolf K
There were several Linux items listed. use Edit/Find if you can't see
them with the naked eye.
Wolf K.
Bullwinkle.
Carry on, with it.
"Big Steel" <bigon...@big1zzzzz.com> wrote in message
news:TvudnYkwQPpSSv3T...@earthlink.com...
chrisv
>Hadron wrote:
>>
>> JeffM is COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
>
>Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
That "Hadron" is an idiot and a liar?
And that's putting it mildly.
--
'And *WHY* so much OSS is buggy and incomplete. "Works for me" ->
release.' - "True Linux Advocate" Hadron Quark
Hadron
Once again COLA "advocates" venture outside of Roy Schestowitz's
stomping ground and are met with suspicion and finally sent packing back
into the sleazy underbelly of ignorance, lies, bile and cluelessness
where they to fester and belong.
I suspect most of the real Linux advocates and users in the groups
listed in the newsgroup line are appalled by what they read as
"advocacy" from the likes of JeffM, Chris Ahlstrom, Roy Schestowitz,
chrisv et al. It's a hoorible job trying to keep them penned into COLA
but someone has to.
Big Steel
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>
>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>> ESET?
>>
>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>
>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>
>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>
> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>
> Are you fore real?
> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>
> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
> computers?
>
> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
>
> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>
Here is another clown that is a MS programmer by profession and
hypocrite both day and night that can't get a damn job using Linux if
his stinking life depended upon it. He's just another COLA lunatic with
jaw-jack and lip-service.
He doesn't have the guts to post to where you are at and he gives his
lip-service local in worthless ass COLA.
You should kick his ass to the curb too.
Big Steel
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>>
>>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>>> ESET?
>>>
>>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>>
>>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>>
>>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>>
>> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>>
>> Are you fore real?
>> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>>
>> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
>> computers?
>>
>> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
>> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
>> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
>
> talking about.
>
>> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
>> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>
> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access& fast
> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
>
> As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60% according to
> Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers would have hammered
> them by now, but why is it that it's the *minority* of M$ Windows servers
> which are attacked. Could it *just* be that they are far easier to knock
> over? Something which obviously hasn't occured to the OP.
>
> The wintrolls Argue that ""the growth in Linux malware is due to its increasing
> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this argument
> simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties,
> including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm
> author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web
> servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment& instantly
> earn lasting fame in the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't
> happen.
>
> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
> has of damaging/destroying their system, viruses are a very minor system
> threat. There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
> The far bigger,& real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>
>
FromTheRafters
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>> JeffM is COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
>
> That "Hadron" is an idiot and a liar?
>
> And that's putting it mildly.
>
Dustin
news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPT...@lyse.net:
> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
> OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
> safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
> unsafe.
Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
> Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few. The most
> annoying to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus.
> We had a worm that got into a few machines - the source was an
> employee who brought in their laptop to download a windows service
> pack that blocked said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at
> home. Needless to say that employee got a keelhauling for
> connecting an outside machine to the company network.
That indicates improper security measures being used. [g]. It's no
biggie, long time and I'm sure you've implemented stricter file sharing
since then.
> PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.
I didn't say the PLC was junk, just the software on them that I have to
work with most of the time was. [g]. A PLC is a fine control system.
Have you seen Hubbel's latest offerings?
> However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the
> user interface is normally on a PC. Mess up them, and you've messed
> up the plant.
I know.
>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
>
> No, Linux has better security through better design and
> implementation. (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like
> BSD, Solaris, etc.) Lower desktop market penetration is an extra
> bonus that reduces the threats even more.
And in order to attract the userbase linux seems to be aiming for, they
will have to dumb it down some. Lax some of that inherent security.
When they do, Linux will have the same targets at it as windows does
today.
Linux isn't targetted less because the malware authors think it's
secure, far from that, it's just not viable if you want to make money.
--
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
Dustin
news:j3m8h5$afi$5...@dont-email.me:
> David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> No, Linux has better security through better design and
>> implementation. (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like
>> BSD, Solaris, etc.) Lower desktop market penetration is an extra
>> bonus that reduces the threats even more.
>
> Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout
> the years, isn't it?
I'm not pushing you any bullshit. I'm just giving you my opinion as
that as a former vxer. I targetted windows systems because they were
lots more of them. Not because I thought linux was immune. :)
> Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the
> globe, from its roots with a telephony provider.
Yea. I don't need an education in my own past, thanks tho.
> Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots
> with "Traf-O-Data".
NT wasn't originally intended for end users.
Dustin
> Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't
> get a damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a
> total hypocrite.
Hardly.
Dustin
news:6232e3f2-df39-43ab...@b20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> Hahaha! Good one Big Steel. That's right, Dustin is a clown who
> has written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of
I'm the ehh, clown who handed you your ass in alt.comp.virus you mean. ;p