All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
A Good Start at Eliminating Virus Attacks Against Your Computer.
Master of Reality:
quote:"outlook not so good", wow that magic 8-ball knows everything. Next I will ask it about exchange.
--- End quote ---
taken from undeadlinux.com
DC:
Though the idea works in today's world, one of the premises ('viruses don't exist, they are outlook bugs' - or something similar) is, ofcourse, completely non-true. For the ignorant, viruses (and, actually, pretty much everything on computer-software-area) originated from BEFORE Outlook. Before Windows even. Before Microsoft, even. These old viruses aren't much of a threat these days, since they do way to little damage compared to outlook-viruses, but they DO exist (in software labs, probably, not in the wild I hope).
And yes, viruses can, and do, infect executables. In Windows (usually), Linux (barely), both (yes, those exist) or other systems. And yes, those can spread to CD's (when they are written, not afterwards, but still).
What IS true, is that there are a lot of viruses specifically for Outlook, which should therefore be called outlook-viruses (not e-mail virusus). Those are the ones haunting the net these days.
But those aren't the only ones - there are other, normal executable-infecting viruses (usually on Windows), and IIS (a MS program...) viruses (Code Red was one. Actually, it was a worm, which is something else, but still).
Plus, on MS-systems, viruses spread like wildfire automatically. Under Unix (dunno bout Mac), you must be a complete retard to get a virus, since most of your executables will be owned by root, non-writable by normal users, and you'll be running as a normal user. User-writable executables shouldn't be run by root (for those who do not yet know, running a Linux/Unix system as root is BRAINDEAD).That actually does mean there is _some_ virus-problem possible, but it can't infect files not owned by the same user who was stupid enough to get it, nor is it able to harm the system.
But still, thinking you're out of harms way, viruses concerned, just because you don't use Outlook/Windows is as braindead as using Outlook/Windows.
pkd_lives:
Yes...but.
In todays commercial world, virus as a threat for *nix, is almost pointless. 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.
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.
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$. With all other software (and I must admit this is secondary evidence about macs), bugs susceptable to virus are announced early, programmers work damn fast to protect their customers by patching the hole, or writting a defence. The shear number of hacks, and virus in existance due to Windows vastly outnumbers it's user database.
Most hacks on servers were big news, until a few years ago. Ask yourself WHY? It's easy, hacks used to be specific, then M$ 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).
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.).
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).
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.
DC:
quote:Originally posted by pkd:
In todays commercial world, virus as a threat for *nix, is almost pointless.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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$.
--- End quote ---
also true.
quote:
With all other software (and I must admit this is secondary evidence about macs), bugs susceptable to virus are announced early, programmers work damn fast to protect their customers by patching the hole, or writting a defence.
--- End quote ---
Not true. Granted, most (big) OS software realeases bugpatches in days, if not hours after discovery. Not all do this. And there is more in the software world besides OS and MS, and MS isn't the only one who uses security through obscurity.
quote:
The shear number of hacks, and virus in existance due to Windows vastly outnumbers it's user database.
--- End quote ---
That is only partially caused by Outlooks flaws. Well, a huge part probably, but not 100% of it.
Since Outlook is - by far - the most used e-mail client, and Windows is - by far - the most used Desktop OS (the target of most viruses - servers aren't targeted by viruses, they have worms and hacks), it is only logical that virtually all viruses are written for these, since the writers want to cause a lot of damage.
quote:
Most hacks on servers were big news, until a few years ago. Ask yourself WHY? It's easy, hacks used to be specific, then M$ 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).
--- End quote ---
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.).
--- End quote ---
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).
--- End quote ---
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?
voidmain:
Viruses run in Linux as a normal user can *not* scramble system files and executables without root access. Only root has access to the binary executables on a Linux system. Hence a virus can not propogate itself by the definition of a virus in Linux. That is, it can not attach itself to other executable files, it has no permissions to do so. Most (not all) of the Oulook problems are actually "worms" or a combination of worms and viruses.
Now, having said that, the new Lindows OS (ick) will be *very* susceptible to viruses because it defaults to having everyone use the system as "root" and the "root" user has no password (duh! duh! duh! duh!). Lindows will probably be the worst thing that has ever happened to Linux since it began. Hell, at least Apple was smart enough with OSX not to have normal users log on to the system as root. Why Lindows and it's brain dead CEO ever had this brain cramp I'll never know. It completely goes against the most basic security rule of UNIX.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version