Newbie Q: Moz-Linux vs Moz-Winblows: Differences in Virus Protection?
RedEyeBlind
Can anyone explain the differences between Linux and Windows in
regard to their susceptibility to viruses? What, exactly, makes
Linux safer(?) than MS when reading mail or newsgroup messages using
the Moz/FF/TB applications?
(I need this info to for a meeting on the subject next week.)
Gratitude w/o Attitude,
-RedEyeBlind
gwtc
in mind. Most of the virus creators hate MS. Besides, they're rather
attack as many computers as they can, rather than just a small amount.
Plus, most virus creators give support for open source products.
--
I bet you didn't know that only two people signed the 'merican
Declaration of Independence on July 4th -- John Hancock and Charles
Thomson. Most of the rest signed on August 2, but the last signature
wasn't added until 5 years later. Perhaps he was a member of the
Procrastinators Party?
"gudmundpublic at gmail dot com"
> RedEyeBlind wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Can anyone explain the differences between Linux and Windows in
>> regard to their susceptibility to viruses? What, exactly, makes
>> Linux safer(?) than MS when reading mail or newsgroup messages using
>> the Moz/FF/TB applications?
>>
>> (I need this info to for a meeting on the subject next week.)
>>
>> Gratitude w/o Attitude,
>> -RedEyeBlind
>>
> the vast majority of viruses are created with the hatred of microsoft in
> mind. Most of the virus creators hate MS. Besides, they're rather
> attack as many computers as they can, rather than just a small amount.
> Plus, most virus creators give support for open source products.
Another thing is how things are typically done in the system: in Linux,
user/file rights add an extra step (having to change file properties)
before running silly stuff, and the user rights typically limit damage
to the one user, rather than compromising a whole system.
At least up until now, it has IMHO also been a matter of attitude or
philosophy, to put power in the hands of the user, and not to simply
assume things and be "helpful" in the way MS does.
BR,
Gudmund
Christopher Jahn
news:n8ydncH2kvxc7PTZ...@mozilla.org:
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone explain the differences between Linux and
> Windows in
> regard to their susceptibility to viruses? What, exactly,
> makes Linux safer(?) than MS when reading mail or newsgroup
> messages using the Moz/FF/TB applications?
>
> (I need this info to for a meeting on the subject next
> week.)
Primarily, MS viruses work by taking advantage of MS's philosophy
of integrating all its software into the operating system. Linux
does not integrate, it simply runs the software.
Also, MS is very slow to fix the vulnerabilities when they are
reported, while Linux developers actively works to find and
eliminate them as part of the base process.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I haven't lost my mind; it's back up on tape somewhere.
Daniel
I had thought that this might come under "getting the biggest bang for
your bucks"
MS Windows (with IE and O/OE) is installed on by far and away the
largest number of computers, so if you want to have an effect, malicious
or otherwise, you might as well target Windows system faults!
My 2c worth.
Daniel
" >
While there are a few viruses which can infect a linux operating system,
they are, so far, lab-test curiosities which require the active
participation of the computer's operator to install and run them.
Also, in a linux system, the users do not have the authority to make
changes anywhere but within each user's "home" directory. Generally
speaking, that means any executable file a user downloads and runs will
be limited in effect to that user's home directory as well. This
compartmentalization protects other users and the system itself, and
seems to be much more strict than the authorizations Windows uses.
I'm "painting with a broad brush" here, and no doubt have left out a
great deal of detail, but if that's the case the more experienced op's
here will likely correct me for your benefit.
Karl S
--
People who say they understand you - will lie about other things too...
RedEyeBlind
More newbie questions...
1) How can you detect a Linux virus?
2) Do the Moz/FF/TB/etc series of web applications scan for them?
3) Is it possible to detect if an intruder has access to your
system and monitoring your every move? (forgive the paranoia)
Gratitude w/o Attitude,
-RedEyeBlind
gwtc
if you're that paranoid, then what are you doing on the internet.
Don't you know that the men in black are watching your every move.
--
I bet you didn't know that "I am" is the shortest complete sentence in
the English language
Ron Lopshire
> none wrote:
>
>> RedEyeBlind wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone explain the differences between Linux and Windows in
>>> regard to their susceptibility to viruses? What, exactly, makes
>>> Linux safer(?) than MS when reading mail or newsgroup messages using
>>> the Moz/FF/TB applications?
>>>
>>> (I need this info to for a meeting on the subject next week.)
>>
>> While there are a few viruses which can infect a linux operating
>> system, they are, so far, lab-test curiosities which require the
>> active participation of the computer's operator to install and run them.
>>
>> Also, in a linux system, the users do not have the authority to make
>> changes anywhere but within each user's "home" directory. Generally
>> speaking, that means any executable file a user downloads and runs
>> will be limited in effect to that user's home directory as well. This
>> compartmentalization protects other users and the system itself, and
>> seems to be much more strict than the authorizations Windows uses.
>>
>> I'm "painting with a broad brush" here, and no doubt have left out a
>> great deal of detail, but if that's the case the more experienced op's
>> here will likely correct me for your benefit.
>
> More newbie questions...
>
> 1) How can you detect a Linux virus?
> 2) Do the Moz/FF/TB/etc series of web applications scan for them?
> 3) Is it possible to detect if an intruder has access to your
> system and monitoring your every move? (forgive the paranoia)
RedEyeBlind,
Linux safer than Windows? Of course, but not invulnerable. Secunia
does a pretty good job of keeping up with all OS exploits. For Linux
specifically,
(http://secunia.com/search/?search=Linux)
If you want to scan your Linux system for viruses, worms, trojans,
etc., try one of the online scanners (almost all are free) from one of
the major AV vendors.
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=online+virus+scan+Linux&btnG=Search)
Short Version: (http://tinyurl.com/eosv5)
1) Make sure that you only deal with reputable AV vendors. Rogue
outfits will tell you that you have a zillion problems, and then offer
to bail you out for cash.
2) I don't know if Kaspersky's online scanner works with Linux, but
here is an essay by Eugene Kaspersky about the state of the AV
industry. A good list of the major, reputable AV players.
(http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=174405517)
3) While you are in the above site, search for info on Linux. A great
source for malware info.
(http://www.viruslist.com/en/find?words=Linux&search=Search)
4) Many of the online scanners require IE (ActiveX).
5) Many of the online scanners will identify, but not remove pests.
As to the differences in exploitablity, the MS OSs are king, but the
flavors of *nix are getting hit more and more.
Viruses: not a Linux problem?
(http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog?weblogid=170272380)
The illusion of invulnerability
(http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog?weblogid=186275723)
And Apple Computer has been getting a lot of bad press over adverts
claiming that the Mac OS X is virtually virus-proof. Not!
(http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=182060490)
An ad Apple will regret?
(http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid14_gci1186868,00.html)
Ron :)
Moz Champion (Dan)
of concept' for the humungous total of 4 (yes count em FOUR)
all of which have been fixed in the latest security update.
So, running Mac OS 10.4.6 with the latest update, and the Mac is indeed
'bulletproof' once more. Compare that with approx 72,000 viruses and
exploits on the Windows system - some of which have been around for
years (the exploits) and still not patched by Microsoft.
Compartively speaking, the Mac is indeed 'bulletproof' compared to
Windows at least.
Okay, the Mac OS X is relatively new compared to Windows, so lets
include the old Mac 9x viruses and vulnerbilities as well. Oh my a grand
total of 80 (including variants)!
Okay, so lets include the factors of usage. Mac users worldwide
represent approx 30% of the total, yet viruses and exploits are less
than .1% of the Windows total - heck even if you just go by the US Mac
users (approx 10%), the 'share' of viruses and vulnerabilities (even
including a system that came out in 1990) that .1% is phenomanal.
Loosely speaking, a Windows user is 999 times more vulnerable than a Mac
user. Invulnerable? No, but then neither is Superman (Kryptonite et al)
" >
both Unix OS's designed to run on an Intel PC. They share the
compartmentalization typical of true multi-user operating systems, with
the increased security that implies. However, I won't claim either
system as invulnerable. As long as the owner and operator of a home
computer can be duped into downloading, and installing a wonderful new
app while logged in as root, it doesn't matter how good the OS's
security may be.
My bet is that adware and spyware for linux will eventually become a
problem for that sort of operator.
RedEyeBlind
Ron,
Thanks for the info and the links; looks like I've got
some homework to do, but now I have some reference material.
Thanks to all of the folks that responded to my query. All
of your inputs have been entered into the evidence I plan to
present.
"...May your women always be hot and your beer always cold!..."
Best Regards,
-RedEyeBlind
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>> RedEyeBlind wrote:
>>
>>> none wrote:
>>>
>>>> RedEyeBlind wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone explain the differences between Linux and Windows in
>>>>> regard to their susceptibility to viruses? What, exactly, makes
>>>>> Linux safer(?) than MS when reading mail or newsgroup messages using
>>>>> the Moz/FF/TB applications?
>>>>
> Well golly gee. 1 (yes count em ONE) 'exploit' in the wild, and 'proof
> of concept' for the humungous total of 4 (yes count em FOUR)
> all of which have been fixed in the latest security update.
>
> So, running Mac OS 10.4.6 with the latest update, and the Mac is indeed
> 'bulletproof' once more. Compare that with approx 72,000 viruses and
> exploits on the Windows system - some of which have been around for
> years (the exploits) and still not patched by Microsoft.
>
> Compartively speaking, the Mac is indeed 'bulletproof' compared to
> Windows at least.
> Okay, the Mac OS X is relatively new compared to Windows, so lets
> include the old Mac 9x viruses and vulnerbilities as well. Oh my a grand
> total of 80 (including variants)! Okay, so lets include the factors of
> usage. Mac users worldwide represent approx 30% of the total, yet
> viruses and exploits are less than .1% of the Windows total - heck even
> if you just go by the US Mac users (approx 10%), the 'share' of viruses
> and vulnerabilities (even including a system that came out in 1990) that
> .1% is phenomanal.
>
> Loosely speaking, a Windows user is 999 times more vulnerable than a Mac
> user. Invulnerable? No, but then neither is Superman (Kryptonite et al)
Dan,
At least you can count your OS's exploits. We Windows users cannot
even count that high. And, I cannot even fathom a change in MS's
business model allowing this scenario to change during my lifetime.
That said, if you use a Mac, go to Apple Computer's download site, and
get the OS and browser patches. You can't beat the price.
BTW, sorry about not snipping ... being lazy today, and snipping
requires thought.
Ron ;)
Ron Lopshire
> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux safer than Windows? Of course, but not invulnerable. Secunia
>>> does a pretty good job of keeping up with all OS exploits. For Linux
>>> specifically,
>>>
>>> (http://secunia.com/search/?search=Linux)
>>>
>>>
>>> And Apple Computer has been getting a lot of bad press over adverts
>>> claiming that the Mac OS X is virtually virus-proof. Not!
>>>
>>> (http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=182060490)
>>>
>>> An ad Apple will regret?
>>>
>>> (http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid14_gci1186868,00.html)
>>
>> Well golly gee. 1 (yes count em ONE) 'exploit' in the wild, and 'proof
>> of concept' for the humungous total of 4 (yes count em FOUR)
>> all of which have been fixed in the latest security update.
>>
>>
>> Loosely speaking, a Windows user is 999 times more vulnerable than a
>> Mac user. Invulnerable? No, but then neither is Superman (Kryptonite
>> et al)
>
> count that high. And, I cannot even fathom a change in MS's business
> model allowing this scenario to change during my lifetime. That said, if
> you use a Mac, go to Apple Computer's download site, and get the OS and
> browser patches. You can't beat the price.
Dan,
From the "things I learned looking up other things" department.
I was investigating getting rid of the insidious MS WGA spyware, and
the soon to be released OGA (Office Genuine Advantage). (I paid for my
WinXP box with MS Office 2003 Professional, but it is the principle of
the thing.)
How to dump Windows' piracy 'spyware'
(http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=31281)
What a system. Tick off the people who purchase your products
legitimately, while having practically no effect on those who pirate
your stuff. That is when I ran into this on the same site.
Pirates cause Apple to close down OSX (Thursday 18 May 2006)
(http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=31810)
Apple closes down OS X
(http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/17/78300_21OPcurve_1.html)
Quote: "But there are ways to address the piracy issue without
stripping the critical and defining quality of openness from OS X."
This evidently will become more important as Apple ventures into the
world of Intel.
And, as they say on baseball broadcasts, if you are keeping score at home:
Mac/OS X/Safari/Quicktime --- 43 exploits
MS/Windows/IE/OE/Outlook --- about a zillion
You Mac users have a lot of catching up to do. LOL.
Ron :)
Moz Champion (Dan)
>
> Dan,
>
> At least you can count your OS's exploits. We Windows users cannot
> even count that high. And, I cannot even fathom a change in MS's
> business model allowing this scenario to change during my lifetime.
> That said, if you use a Mac, go to Apple Computer's download site, and
> get the OS and browser patches. You can't beat the price.
>
> BTW, sorry about not snipping ... being lazy today, and snipping
> requires thought.
>
> Ron ;)
Microsoft book, Apple has created its own automatic update service. It
automatically checks for updates and tells you when they are available,
all you have to do is click install (which starts the download,
installation and system optimization routines for you). Click restart
(if requested) when finished. You can change the time period between
checks as well.
Ron Lopshire
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>> At least you can count your OS's exploits. We Windows users cannot
>> even count that high. And, I cannot even fathom a change in MS's
>> business model allowing this scenario to change during my lifetime.
>> That said, if you use a Mac, go to Apple Computer's download site, and
>> get the OS and browser patches. You can't beat the price.
>
> You dont even have to go to the site <g>. Taking a page out of the
> Microsoft book, Apple has created its own automatic update service. It
> automatically checks for updates and tells you when they are available,
> all you have to do is click install (which starts the download,
> installation and system optimization routines for you). Click restart
> (if requested) when finished. You can change the time period between
> checks as well.
Thanks for the info, Dan. I have a friend who just switched from
Windows 2K to a Mac. He is just the kind of guy for whom automatic
fits the bill. I will let him know to set his Mac for auto updates.
BTW, I am dead against you guys switching to Macs. It reminds me of
the joke:
"I am in favor of gay marriage, because I believe that there is no
reason that gays shouldn't be just as miserable as the rest of us."
Everyone should experience the unsecure world of WinXP.
Ron ;)
Moz Champion (Dan)
I've been a 'machead' since 1985. My first computer was an Apple IIc.,
followed by a Mac IIcx - my main computer has always been a mac.
Tho I've worked on, and with, Windows, Unix and Oracle systems, the mac
was always my mainstay at home.
I've experienced the 'unsecure world' of Windows (as you put it), and
currently run WinXP on my other desktop machine (its set to different
newsgroups). I also have another Windows desktop on backup, and two
Windows laptops as well (for a grand total of 6 machines right now - two
are macs)
I dont consider Windows to be an inferior machine, just a different
mindset. Windows allows you much more intensive control than the
'standard' Mac interface, but that is its weakness as well. You have to
be aware of and set many more things in a Windows installation to reach
the 'security' level of the average Mac - but it can be done.
Conversely, you can get the same 'control' over your computer with a
Mac, as on a Windows machine, but it does take some effort and work.
There are pluses and minuses to both OSes, tho by nature, I am more
inclined to the mac of course. The way I see it, a Windows computer is
great for logical, step by step mindsets, while the mac is more atuned
to sudden inspriation and intuitiveness. Simply find the mindset that
suits you, and you are all set.
The Real Bev
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
> I've experienced the 'unsecure world' of Windows (as you put it), and
> currently run WinXP on my other desktop machine (its set to different
> newsgroups). I also have another Windows desktop on backup, and two
> Windows laptops as well (for a grand total of 6 machines right now - two
> are macs)
>
> I dont consider Windows to be an inferior machine, just a different
> mindset.
Minor point: Windows isn't a machine, it's software. Carry on.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why put fault tolerance in the OS, when it's already built
into the User?" -- Steve Shaw, regarding Win95
Moz Champion (Dan)
> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>
>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>
>> I've experienced the 'unsecure world' of Windows (as you put it), and
>> currently run WinXP on my other desktop machine (its set to different
>> newsgroups). I also have another Windows desktop on backup, and two
>> Windows laptops as well (for a grand total of 6 machines right now -
>> two are macs)
>>
>> I dont consider Windows to be an inferior machine, just a different
>> mindset.
>
> Minor point: Windows isn't a machine, it's software. Carry on.
>
I dont consider machines running Windows to be inferior, just a
different mindset
Same idea, different words.
Sorry, couldnt comment on Linux simply because I have never used it.
"gudmundpublic at gmail dot com"
About time then :). I haven't used Mac's enough to be sure, but I'd
guess GNU/Linux gives you the opportunity of getting both the mindsets
you described, with the Mac security level.
You can use more or less all the Unix commands you're used to in the
command line, and/or point and click your way through in whatever way
suits you.
BR,
Gudmund
Melchert Fruitema
> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>
>> I've experienced the 'unsecure world' of Windows (as you put it), and
>> currently run WinXP on my other desktop machine (its set to different
>> newsgroups). I also have another Windows desktop on backup, and two
>> Windows laptops as well (for a grand total of 6 machines right now -
>> two are macs)
>>
>> I dont consider Windows to be an inferior machine, just a different
>> mindset.
> Minor point: Windows isn't a machine, it's software. Carry on.
Windows Desktops? Windows laptops? Machines that allow Windows to run on
it, perhaps?
--
Kind regards,
Melchert
MacOS 10.3.9/Firefox 1.5/Thunderbird 1.5
clay
[since it's already OT anyway...]
I just joined the Linux community last week.
Built a pvr and decided to give it a try. Chose the Ubuntu Breezy 5.10
build. First thing I noticed is the GUI looks a whole lot like a Mozilla
browser window.
Spent ~ 12 hours over 2 days 'installing' (not what Linux users call it
but I'm new) the MythTV software.
Surprise, surprise, it actually ran when I finished. Waiting on a video
card so I can hook it all up.
... never too old to learn new things.
--
100% money back guarantee!
If at any time you are dissatisfied with the performance of your Mozilla
product, feel free to return it for a complete refund of what you paid
for it...
The Real Bev
> RedEyeBlind wrote:
>>
>> 1) How can you detect a Linux virus?
>> 2) Do the Moz/FF/TB/etc series of web applications scan for them?
>> 3) Is it possible to detect if an intruder has access to your
>> system and monitoring your every move? (forgive the paranoia)
>>
> you know that the men in black are watching your every move.
NONONONONO! The men in black are protecting us, it's the Black
Helicopters that are scanning our brains as well as our activities. I
thought everyone knew that.
Cheers, Bev
(Perplexed at the amount of survivable ignorance found in the world)