Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
125 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Registration Account
As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
- Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
all 4 folders were infected with
Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
an infected file or execute an infected .bin file

Scott

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Per Jessen
Registration Account wrote:

> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> all 4 folders were infected with
> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's.

Scott, they're just phishing emails, they're not really infected nor
infectious.  They pose no threat whatsoever.



/Per Jessen, Zürich

--
http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

C-29
In reply to this post by Registration Account
On 8/7/07, Registration Account <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> all 4 folders were infected with
> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
> almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
> suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
> clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
> if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
> an infected file or execute an infected .bin file

But... that isn't a Linux virus is it?  That is an email with stuff in
it that is only "triggered" when you respond to the contents... (click
on link, provide personal information in a reply etc)  ie.. it is a
social engineering virus, not a Linux virus.


C
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 10:40 +0200, Clayton wrote:

> On 8/7/07, Registration Account <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> > and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> > - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> > which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> > all 4 folders were infected with
> > Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
> > almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
> > suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
> > clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
> > if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
> > an infected file or execute an infected .bin file
>
> But... that isn't a Linux virus is it?  That is an email with stuff in
> it that is only "triggered" when you respond to the contents... (click
> on link, provide personal information in a reply etc)  ie.. it is a
> social engineering virus, not a Linux virus.
>
>
> C

On this subject.

If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also
be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.

Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  I know to
install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and
running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just
need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code.
(given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour
Linux)

Hans




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Per Jessen
Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  

Primarily due to a better and much more ingrained security system.  Do
you normally run as root on your Linux desktop?  Well, that what's a
Windows user normally does on his Windows ditto.

> I know to install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but
> installing and running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is
> easy; you just need a cunning app to fool the user in executing
> malicious code.

Which does what?  Chances are it will only affect that one user, unless
it's some sort of DOS attack.



/Per Jessen, Zürich

--
http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

John Andersen
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also
> be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.

No.
The reason windows is attacked is because its EASY, not JUST because its
popular.  Believing otherwise is swallowing Microsoft FUD hook line and
sinker.


> Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  

Because it is.  With windows, simply sending you a file can infect
you.  With linux, sending you a file and having you click on it all
day long STILL does not make it executable.


> I know to
> install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and
> running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just
> need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code.

Social engineering is always a risk, but with Linux you can even prevent
against that to a far greater degree than with windows.  Egress filtering
does a lot.  But the real protection is that users who are too dumb to
realized WHY they are being asked to set something executable when all they
thought they were doing was getting a eCard from a classmate or a bored girl
are also too dumb to figure out how to set it executable.


> (given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour
> Linux)

I submit that for all practical purposes it is impossible.  Or at the
very least impractical.

Evidence:  We have been fighting windows viruses and worms tooth
and nail for Over 10 Years.  Wouldn't you thing that would have
been time enough for some clever virus writer to try and take over
that very LARGE segment of internet web servers that run on
various 'nix machines, and which serve as firewalls to vast
data warehouses?

Further advances in SE linux make it even less likely in the future.

Bill would like you to believe its JUST because his OS is popular.

--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe
In reply to this post by Per Jessen

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:08 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:

> Hans van der Merwe wrote:
>
> > Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  
>
> Primarily due to a better and much more ingrained security system.  Do
> you normally run as root on your Linux desktop?  Well, that what's a
> Windows user normally does on his Windows ditto.
>
> > I know to install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but
> > installing and running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is
> > easy; you just need a cunning app to fool the user in executing
> > malicious code.
>
> Which does what?  Chances are it will only affect that one user, unless
> it's some sort of DOS attack.

Well, that what I started with - a desktop environment - in desktop
environments there are basically only one user - so messing with his/her
docs/mail etc is just as bad as wiping the /lib dir?
With servers its diff, I agree.




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

G T Smith
In reply to this post by Registration Account
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Registration Account wrote:

> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> all 4 folders were infected with
> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
> almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
> suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
> clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
> if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
> an infected file or execute an infected .bin file
>
> Scott

Oh Boy!

This kind of thing (a mail worm NOT a virus to be pedantic) usually only
showed up in spam mail (which should be picked up by your spam filter)
and is only potentially dangerous if you actually open and run the
relevant scripts. As most of these expect windows to be at the receiving
end they almost certainly will not work if anyone is daft enough to open
them and would be only dangerous if they did work if accessed as root.
(If you get caught in this particular situation dont look for sympathy
from this direction).

Windows based on access scanners should usually pick this up so those
really at threat should be covered anyway.

Scanning really offers protection against the things that are known, and
is a waste of space for identifying the things that we dont. On access
server side scanning can seriously impact overall mail server
performance with possibly few identifiable benefits (spam filtering on
the other hand is a different story). Apparently you can use CLamAV with
procmail (which would would give you on access scanning which you cliam
it does not do). (see http://wiki.clamav.net/Main/ClamAndProcmail).

Managed client side tools should be much more effective. Good security
practice is probably as effective as a good scanning software.

There are security threats in the Linux world but viruses are not and
are unlikely to be significant issue.

In other word DONT PANIC (and remember the towel) :-) .


- --
==============================================================================
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

Bjarne Stroustrup
==============================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGuDs3asN0sSnLmgIRAk1WAKDnlQE65ydff5kY+ZzlwaD78vFKmACgkbiH
HmsZUDgceeHV6DXOgaeeAOI=
=0Lqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe
In reply to this post by John Andersen

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 01:15 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> > If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also
> > be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.
>
> No.
> The reason windows is attacked is because its EASY, not JUST because its
> popular.  Believing otherwise is swallowing Microsoft FUD hook line and
> sinker.
>
>
> > Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  
>
> Because it is.  With windows, simply sending you a file can infect
> you.  With linux, sending you a file and having you click on it all
> day long STILL does not make it executable.
>
>
> > I know to
> > install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and
> > running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just
> > need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code.
>
> Social engineering is always a risk, but with Linux you can even prevent
> against that to a far greater degree than with windows.  Egress filtering
> does a lot.  But the real protection is that users who are too dumb to
> realized WHY they are being asked to set something executable when all they
> thought they were doing was getting a eCard from a classmate or a bored girl
> are also too dumb to figure out how to set it executable.
>
>
> > (given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour
> > Linux)
>
> I submit that for all practical purposes it is impossible.  Or at the
> very least impractical.
>
> Evidence:  We have been fighting windows viruses and worms tooth
> and nail for Over 10 Years.  Wouldn't you thing that would have
> been time enough for some clever virus writer to try and take over
> that very LARGE segment of internet web servers that run on
> various 'nix machines, and which serve as firewalls to vast
> data warehouses?

> Further advances in SE linux make it even less likely in the future.
>
> Bill would like you to believe its JUST because his OS is popular.
>

Again, Im only talking about Desktop Linux, not servers - web users dont
have logons, email and web-browsing on arb webservers - so it remains
dumb user proof.

But my main concern is that dumb users usually make up most of the
desktop market out there - and preaching to them that Linux will make
there virus problem go away is setting them up for a fall.

 Hans




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:30 +0200, Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 01:15 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> > > If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also
> > > be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.
> >
> > No.
> > The reason windows is attacked is because its EASY, not JUST because its
> > popular.  Believing otherwise is swallowing Microsoft FUD hook line and
> > sinker.
> >
> >
> > > Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  
> >
> > Because it is.  With windows, simply sending you a file can infect
> > you.  With linux, sending you a file and having you click on it all
> > day long STILL does not make it executable.
> >
> >
> > > I know to
> > > install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and
> > > running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just
> > > need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code.
> >
> > Social engineering is always a risk, but with Linux you can even prevent
> > against that to a far greater degree than with windows.  Egress filtering
> > does a lot.  But the real protection is that users who are too dumb to
> > realized WHY they are being asked to set something executable when all they
> > thought they were doing was getting a eCard from a classmate or a bored girl
> > are also too dumb to figure out how to set it executable.
> >
> >
> > > (given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour
> > > Linux)
> >
> > I submit that for all practical purposes it is impossible.  Or at the
> > very least impractical.
> >
> > Evidence:  We have been fighting windows viruses and worms tooth
> > and nail for Over 10 Years.  Wouldn't you thing that would have
> > been time enough for some clever virus writer to try and take over
> > that very LARGE segment of internet web servers that run on
> > various 'nix machines, and which serve as firewalls to vast
> > data warehouses?
>
> > Further advances in SE linux make it even less likely in the future.
> >
> > Bill would like you to believe its JUST because his OS is popular.
> >
>
> Again, Im only talking about Desktop Linux, not servers - web users dont
> have logons, email and web-browsing on arb webservers - so it remains
> dumb user proof.
>
> But my main concern is that dumb users usually make up most of the
> desktop market out there - and preaching to them that Linux will make
> there virus problem go away is setting them up for a fall.
>
>  Hans

Sorry, "their" virus problem and for replying to my own mail.

And...  desktop users install all kinds of insane apps - when desktop
linux is popular - more apps will appear - increasing the risk of
installing a malicious one.

Hans



E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

John Andersen
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> But my main concern is that dumb users usually make up most of the
> desktop market out there - and preaching to them that Linux will make
> there virus problem go away is setting them up for a fall.

I fail to see how it sets them up for a fall.  
There has to be a something to fall over before there is a fall.

What would YOU SUGGEST we "preach" to them?


--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 01:35 -0800, John Andersen wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> > But my main concern is that dumb users usually make up most of the
> > desktop market out there - and preaching to them that Linux will make
> > there virus problem go away is setting them up for a fall.
>
> I fail to see how it sets them up for a fall.  
> There has to be a something to fall over before there is a fall.
>
> What would YOU SUGGEST we "preach" to them?
>

Again - the SETUP will involve removing windows and installing a flavour
of linux to curb the effects of viruses.  The FALL will be when they
click yes to something they dont understand (not Linux fault, yes I
know) and then having their docs trashed - leaving them exactly where
they were with windows.  They and the media will not be interested in
how it happened, just that it happened.

Yes this is not in any way the fault of Linux or Linux programmers or
distros etc, BUT telling users to install Linux because it will help for
viruses is IMHO irresponsible.

Hans




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Fergus Wilde
In reply to this post by Registration Account
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 09:28, Registration Account wrote:

> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> all 4 folders were infected with
> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
> almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
> suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
> clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
> if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
> an infected file or execute an infected .bin file
>
> Scott

How is the presence of a phishing email a virus infection in Linux?

--
Fergus Wilde
Chetham's Library
Long Millgate
Manchester
M3 1SB

Tel: 0161 834 7961
Fax: 0161 839 5797

http://www.chethams.org.uk
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Joe Morris
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
On 08/07/2007 05:49 PM, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> Again - the SETUP will involve removing windows and installing a flavour
> of linux to curb the effects of viruses.  
And it does help, not in the future but in the present.
> The FALL will be when they
> click yes to something they dont understand (not Linux fault, yes I
> know) and then having their docs trashed - leaving them exactly where
> they were with windows.  
And if they have learned nothing else than not to click on everything
next time, then at least they have learned that.  BUT, anything that
would wipe out their docs would only wipe out their docs.  Getting
running again would be a short exercise not a reinstall.  Anyone that
inept is still in much better shape with Linux than Windows.
> They and the media will not be interested in
> how it happened, just that it happened.
>  
If they do not care how it happened, then they would be beyond any
reasonable arguments because they would definitely be fringe, not
mainstream.
> Yes this is not in any way the fault of Linux or Linux programmers or
> distros etc, BUT telling users to install Linux because it will help for
> viruses is IMHO irresponsible.
>  
I respect your right to your opinion, but I know my daughters laptop
works much more reliably in Linux than in Windows in her college
setting, with friends using her computer.  It is her opinion Linux DOES
much more than help, it works when her dual boot Windows gets stuffed
with viruses, worms, etc.

--
Joe Morris
Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

jdd@dodin.org
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?

* Windows is stuck by it's history. Original windows (3.11, 95 or 98)
had no idea of what security mind. So many application programmers
used to store they user data in the application folder (for example).

And they are used to, so they still do.

so it's nearly impossible to run windows XP in safe mode (it can do)
without conflicting with dozen of softwares. result: even a cautious
user is obliged to run XP with root permissions.

* proprietary software, specially shareware rely on external
repositories to spread they application. Proprietary paid software are
hacked and spread by e-mule or similar.

This makes content ack very difficult. You stole a programm, you can't
ask the owner if there is a virus inside...

Open source programms/apps are mostly spread via owner repository or
official mirrors, anybody complaining can have an aswer in a minute
(if a virus is suspected, the community have a very fast response
curve), so any virus will be detected, the origin found and cured in a
matter of hours.

The only significant attacks against Linux are made from the computer
keyboard (and against that, no cure).

* oh... the worst virus: a mail with "my friend, this 'vmlinuz' file
in your /boot folder is an extremely dangerous virus, immediatly
- copy this info to all yours friends,
- go root and remove this file from your disk, and any file that looks
similar."

if you follow such instructions, you deserv the problems you get :-()

jdd

--
http://www.dodin.net
http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

James Knott
In reply to this post by Registration Account
Registration Account wrote:

> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
> all 4 folders were infected with
> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
> almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
> suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
> clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
> if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
> an infected file or execute an infected .bin file
>
> Scott
>  
If an email contains a virus, Linux is quite capable of passing it on
with that message.  How many of those viruses infected the Linux box?
Just sitting in a mail box doesn't count as infected.

--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

HansvdMerwe
In reply to this post by Joe Morris

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 18:24 +0800, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

> On 08/07/2007 05:49 PM, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> > Again - the SETUP will involve removing windows and installing a flavour
> > of linux to curb the effects of viruses.  
> And it does help, not in the future but in the present.
> > The FALL will be when they
> > click yes to something they dont understand (not Linux fault, yes I
> > know) and then having their docs trashed - leaving them exactly where
> > they were with windows.  
> And if they have learned nothing else than not to click on everything
> next time, then at least they have learned that.  BUT, anything that
> would wipe out their docs would only wipe out their docs.  Getting
> running again would be a short exercise not a reinstall.  Anyone that
> inept is still in much better shape with Linux than Windows.
> > They and the media will not be interested in
> > how it happened, just that it happened.
> >  
> If they do not care how it happened, then they would be beyond any
> reasonable arguments because they would definitely be fringe, not
> mainstream.

Well, just read a bit about the Firefox Password Manager "bug" that is
hurting the move to Firefox, Im sure.  Wired, CNet, CNN, BBC, etc really
dont care that this is not a bug in the traditional sense of the word,
but well... a feature gone bad in the ever changing webserver world.  To
them its a juicy story about the great freedom Firefox being just as
vulnerable/bad as IE or Safari.
 
Fringe media is leading the non-tech world, its a reality, something to
plan for and deal with.



> > Yes this is not in any way the fault of Linux or Linux programmers or
> > distros etc, BUT telling users to install Linux because it will help for
> > viruses is IMHO irresponsible.
> >  
> I respect your right to your opinion, but I know my daughters laptop
> works much more reliably in Linux than in Windows in her college
> setting, with friends using her computer.  It is her opinion Linux DOES
> much more than help, it works when her dual boot Windows gets stuffed
> with viruses, worms, etc.
>

I guess (and again my opinion) that most (yes, not all) Linux users at
the moment are not the average Joe computer user that will click on
anything that is put up on the screen.  And users that dont know Linux
using Linux is more cautious not to "mess-up" the computer.   This will
change as average Linux users increase.

I'm just "preaching" caution - just as I don't tell people to use Linux
because its free, money wise or as in freedom, most of them are
skeptical about "free stuff", and the other really not care about tech
freedom (wrongly so, but that is a diff fight).

I believe that the free, freedom etc is to the Dells, HPs and IBMs, not
the user - the user, in an ideal world, should not even know what a OS
is (as MS have already done with 80% of the users out there).  Dell etc
should care if some of their revenue go to MS - they are starting to,
they should make the difference.  A user revolt will not happen.

Well, my ZA 2c worth, which is not much in $ terms.
Thanks for the discussion.
Hans
ps.  I have no Windows machines at home - Im also seen as the company
Linux fanboy/troublemaker - so this is mainly a bit of devils advocation
going on.




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

James Knott
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 10:40 +0200, Clayton wrote:
>  
>> On 8/7/07, Registration Account <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> As you know clamAV provides NO realtime virus detection
>>> and from time to time we all need to execute a clamscan
>>> - Well I just performed a clamscan and found 4 folder
>>> which a year or so stored and catagorised emails and
>>> all 4 folders were infected with
>>> Phishing.Heuristics.emal.spoofedDomain virus's. As
>>> almost all emails are held in mbox format I would
>>> suggest everyone to run a scan periodically. Remember
>>> clamAV provides NO repeat NO real time protection, even
>>> if you copy them to a MS Windows or NSF drive or open
>>> an infected file or execute an infected .bin file
>>>      
>> But... that isn't a Linux virus is it?  That is an email with stuff in
>> it that is only "triggered" when you respond to the contents... (click
>> on link, provide personal information in a reply etc)  ie.. it is a
>> social engineering virus, not a Linux virus.
>>
>>
>> C
>>    
>
> On this subject.
>
> If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also
> be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.
>
> Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?  I know to
> install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and
> running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just
> need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code.
> (given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour
> Linux)
>
>  

In order for it to run, someone has to make it executable first.  If
that is not done, a virus is incapable of doing anything.  Then even if
it manages to run, it can only affect whatever the user has permissions
for and nothing else.  Further, there were many bad design decisions in
MS software, that leave it wide open for abuse.  A famous example of
this is how IE is built into the kernel.  The sole reason for this is
because in the Netscape vs MS trial, MS said IE couldn't be removed as
it was part of the OS.  Next version of Windows, it was mixed in with
the OS, when it previously had been just an app.  This means that any
malware that affects IE has the run of the system.  At a time when good
software engineering dictated modularizing, MS was going the other way.

--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Per Jessen
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> Well, that what I started with - a desktop environment - in desktop
> environments there are basically only one user - so messing with
> his/her docs/mail etc is just as bad as wiping the /lib dir?

Not at all.  If a user manages to screw up his/her home-directory, you
just restore it from the last backup.  If you get an intruder on your
system as such, you might even have to re-install.



/Per Jessen, Zürich

--
http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who said Linux doesnot get Virus infections

Per Jessen
In reply to this post by HansvdMerwe
Hans van der Merwe wrote:

> BUT telling users to install Linux because it will help
> for viruses is IMHO irresponsible.

Does anyone actually do that?  I can see the above as an additional
argument for someone who's about to switch to Linux, but surely it's
not the main reason.



/Per Jessen, Zürich

--
http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

1234 ... 7