quote:
Originally posted by pkd:
In todays commercial world, virus as a threat for *nix, is almost pointless.
No it's not. Ignoring stupid sysadmins who infect the system (those probably exist), a virus can spread in a Unix enviroment. The result will be far less devestating, if you look at damage to the system, but if an important manager/accountant or whatever gets his files deleted or scrambled, there *will* be damage.
quote:
We all know it's damn hard without getting root, so any virus that gets written is going to be written by someone very smart (not a script knowledgable kiddie - I'm sure ex eleven can offer some sage words here). in fact it's at the level that if someone is going to do it, it will probably be a targeted attack, and as such if you are going to be hit by such an attack/hack, then virus software/firewalls are not going to help.
Partially true. In Unix, someone who wants to seriously damage the entire system, or servers (which are hopefully run by above-room-temperature-IQ-persons) will indeed need skills far above those of the common script kiddie. But that still does not eliminate the thread to normal users.
Really, it isn't that hard to make a 'virus' that mails itself to users it sees on the HD, then scrambles a few files. On Linux. The problem here is executing it (unlike outlook this isn't done automatically), but face it - most lusers are stupid enough to execute files if they're packed nicely enough. And that WILL cause damage.
quote:
That's primarily the point. It's too fucking easy for some lame, bored, unintelligent kid to write a virus and have it execute through such a highly used e-mail program. Other e-mail proggies don't suffer to this extent. And this here is what most people fail to understand, most viruses are written by people who don't really know that much about computers and software, just look at the profiles of those people arrested for writing this stuff.
This is true.
quote:
Virus exist outside of M$, but the point being made was that it's the easiest start to make in stopping them. M$ are seriously at fault because after all these years it's still too easy to write virus that will execute on M$.
also true.
quote:
With all other software (and I must admit this is secondary evidence about macs), bugs susceptable to virus are announced early, programmers work damn fast to protect their customers by patching the hole, or writting a defence.
Not true. Granted, most (big) OS software realeases bugpatches in days, if not hours after discovery. Not all do this. And there is more in the software world besides OS and MS, and MS isn't the only one who uses security through obscurity.
quote:
The shear number of hacks, and virus in existance due to Windows vastly outnumbers it's user database.
That is only partially caused by Outlooks flaws. Well, a huge part probably, but not 100% of it.
Since Outlook is - by far - the most used e-mail client, and Windows is - by far - the most used Desktop OS (the target of most viruses - servers aren't targeted by viruses, they have worms and hacks), it is only logical that virtually all viruses are written for these, since the writers want to cause a lot of damage.
quote:
Most hacks on servers were big news, until a few years ago. Ask yourself WHY? It's easy, hacks used to be specific, then M$ hit the server scene big time, now it's so fucking common-place I'm scared to release my data unless I know a company is not using windows on it's server (and yes I do check).
Actually, IIS is, while flawed, not as flawed as you guys think (well, most of you). When patched, that is - and most IIS servers weren't at the time those hacks started. Do note that with IIS, it wasn't uncommon that patches were available before the exploits were used - ppl just didn't use the patches. Unpached Apache servers aren't that secure either (more secure than unpatched IIS, but still)
quote:
No-one with an ounce of intelligence will deny you should watch out for virus, but I want it to be occasional, if I get attacked I want it to be by someone much more fucking smarter than I am, and yes lookout is responsable for more virus that it's market share - by a long fucking way, read through the virus lists published by the security companies (Norton and Co.).
Ppl who are smarter that the average Linux user won't attack other ppl in most cases - only complete and utter losers do that (if they are smarter - script kiddies are losers too, but should be pitied because of there ignorance). But anyway, script kiddies will always attack you. Ever heard of DoS? Linux can't stop DoS attacks. Syn floods perhaps (with Syn cookies), but not true bandwith-orientated DoS.
I already discussed that next statement of yours a few paragraphs up.
quote:
I am aware I used virus and hacking and virus protection and firewall a little interchangeably, but I know the difference, and it's all part of the security issue (Virus as you appear to be aware are only a small part of it all - just the most known).
Allright then.
But anyway, my point is that MS is, maybe, 50% responsible for todays security problems. Maybe. This is actually a lot, but not nearly 100%.
Users - and their ignorance and stubborn refusal to learn even a goddamed tiny bit about security - are the real underlying problem. Without that, there wouldn't be a problem even under Windows. With it, Linux is not safe as well.
I predict that if Linux makes is as a desktop-OS, there will be a huge increase in Linux virusus. I hope, and think, that you will all be spared, but I guarantee you that the common user will not.
[/quote]
Ironically at this new job of mine, I have to use outlook, and I have to ask why? I think it's the worst e-mail program I have ever used.[/QUOTE]
Really? Do they really force you to do that? How? Why?
