Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Linux and Antivirus software

<< < (2/8) > >>

Calum:
basically, under windows, the users have authorisation to run programs by default, that have access to system files. also add to this the effect of things like outlook hiding file extensions and executing attachments by default, and someone can send you a file called something like britneystits.jpg.exe and not only will it look like a picture file to you in outlook, but outlook will notice that it is an exe and will run it without even asking you. so because you have access to all the system fiif this exe wants to mess them up, yhave given it permission to simply by reading your email.

suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)

the main problem i see with this model is that you need to change to the superuser to install stuff, like rpm files or installable binaries for things like realplayer and java virtual machine. of course the superuser (i think called "Administrator" in mswindows) does have access to those system files, and this of course *could* create problems if the packages were malicious. This sort of thing has been more or less quashed by things like GPG signatures, verifying the source of the file, and also various switches for package managers like rpm, installpkg and so on, which allow you to see what changes will be made before you install. This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.

answer your question?

tux4me:
Thank You for clearing that up for me.Yes it is true windows does run everything as administrator by default.I have now switched 3 of my machines over to linux because I am tired of having to worry about this.I even got my daughter interested in using linux.I am running suse linux right now.Is there any distro that is better than than another for security?

muzzy:
suffice it to say that none of this happens with a linux system, because outlook isn't available for it, but more importantly because a user only has access to their own $HOME (this is called "My Documents" in mswindows) so if they try and run an executable file, firstly they know they are doing it, and secondly they can't change any system files, because linux's filesystems fully support permissioning (unlike windows's filesystems)

FUD FUD FUD! NTFS supports ACLs, it's just the default windows configuration that's to blame. It can be configured to be pretty good, but most users aren't aware of this. Also, many apps expect the permissions to be fucked up, and won't work if they aren't...

I recall there was also a case with some mail app on linux that would run executable by merely doubleclicking the attachment. I definitely remember there was a big fuzz about it once. Luckily people knew what a bad idea it was since outlook had demonstrated it earlier.

This is one benefit of having a specified package format, where a package to be installed is run by a seperate program, unlike under windows, where the package itself is runnable, and is not visibly installed by an installer program, and so there are no commands which can be used to determine whether the install will mess up your PC or not.

Ever heard of MSI? It's the microsoft's installer system, and it comes with a happy happy package system. Many developers just don't use it, although they damn well should. If microsoft allowed for third party distributions of windows, I'm sure someone would set up a system similar to apt for downloading and verifying of windows packages.

What comes to messing the PC, most users don't have the ability to determine what's safe and what's not, and frankly most of them aren't interested in learning the necessary skills for that. Apps can still screw user's own stuff, even if the rest of the system stays protected. Don't you guys do anything with your computers or why aren't your own files the most valuable part of your personal systems?

Aloone_Jonez:
I agree, if Windows fucks up I can just reinstall it and get my files back, as long as my works not gone I don't realy care so what I have to spend a couple of hours installing software, big wow!

Kintaro:
Ahem, as I said, SELinux, every daemon running public on any of my systems are not running as root, I dont use sendmail I use postfix and QMAIL, all your retarded arguements are redundant, we fucking get it dude. You Can Make Windows Secure.

So why do you come to an Anti Microsoft forum to talk Pro Microsoft? There is no logic in that, you keep repeating yourself, with redundant things.

Linux is nothing, its just a fucking kernel, and how people choose to set that up: there are also different ways you can set Linux up, that is just as, and often a lot more secure then a Windows set up. We get it mate, we can set operating systems up differently. I still choose to use Linux and hate Microsoft because of all the unexplainable troubles it has caused me. I hate proprietary software in general.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page