Re: Viruses

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

Linux is not immune to viruses.

Bull***.

Several points awarded for the enthusiastic, knee-jerk Linux enthusiast
reply. None awarded for critical thinking.

On the other hand, points were awarded for *accuracy*. The fact
that you don't know what is critical, thinking or otherwise, is
meaningless.

The more people who use Linux, the more common Linux
attacks will become.

Wrong. The mechanism simply is not effective with Linux.

The most succesful mechanism is people who don't take, or even
understand, basic precautions.

That is not true.

While Linux users do tend to be more
technically savvy than Windows users (they have to be, after all), I
assure you that there are idiots even among Linux geeks.

Certainly. Which is why the OS itself must be designed for more
secure operation.

with Linux a virus would be lucky to infect any
machine, never mind a significant number.

Which isn't a reflection of any particular inherent characteristic of

Then read what I said again, because you misread it.

Linux, but rather of its comparative lack of popularity. As the

False, and that was my point.

popularity of Linux continues to grow, so will its vulnerability.

Let me repeat that, so that you'll understand it better. The
"virus" concept simply does *not* *work* on a unix type of
operating system. Under *normal* circumstances you simply
cannot infect such an operating system using a virus. The user
*can* be stupid. It makes no difference whether the users are
dumber than rocks, the *normal* operations *just* *don't* *work*
*that* *way*.

It makes no difference if you expose 1 machine or 1 billion
machines, "with Linux a virus would be lucky to infect any
machine, never mind a significant number."

That is not to say that there are not ways to attack Linux and
other unix based systems. It just says that a "virus" is not
an effective mechanism of attack on those systems.

Perhaps you and I have different definitions for the term "immune"?
Because here, you certainly seem to be agreeing that it is, in fact,
not immune, despite your earily "bull***" response.

You don't appear to have enough background to discuss this
concept, and probably should not be disputing *anything*.
Instead, if you ask questions you can get good answers.

I just said that unix based systems are immune to the "virus"
concept. And then I said there are other ways, which are *not*
a virus, that can be effective in attacking a unix system.

Note though, that effective or not, they are not *efficient*.
That is because you cannot mass produce results with them. The
biggest problem with viruses and Windows is the simple fact that
a fairly decent new virus can easily *automatically* be spread
through a given set of networked computers (for example, all
those owned by one company) and cause a very high percentage to
be damaged with very little manual effort required.

The methods available for attacking unix based systems are not
able to do that. Instead it is possible to find one or two that
are vulnerable in one way here or there, and one or two
somewhere else that are vulnerable in another way. But they all
take individual manual intervention. That is to say they are
effective, meaning it works and the computer that is compromised
can be damaged; but they are inefficient because given 1 million
computers there is no way to mass attack them all automatically.

on of the best precautions possible is to run an
OS designed to be secure

That is a *good* precaution, but hardly the best one. The best
precaution is simply to not be stupid.

If only everyone were not as naive as you, that might be
possible. But clearly, there *you* are! We cannot change the
fact that not everyone is a computer security expert. We
*could* change the fact that not every operating system used is
designed to be secure.

By way of example: I've been using MS operationg systems since DOS 3.1.
I ran a free, public access dial-up BBS system for several years,
moving 100 MB of files daily. I've had an always-on broadband
connection to the net for at least five years now, and pretty much
lived on the net via dial-up for several years prior to that. Guess how
many virus infections I've had. Yup, that's right, not even one. Why?
Because I'm not stupid. By taking basic, simple precautions, I've
avoided any virus infection.

The point however is that not just anyone can do that. People
*need* to be able to just plug in the computer, turn it on, and
read their email and surf the web. I you do that with Windows
on a broadband connection the average time to infection is
measured in minutes.

I've been using (Unix based) computers connected to the Internet
for probably longer than you, and have never done *anything* to
avoid a virus. And of course I've never gotten one either...

Your 'best' precaution fails in another way, which is that it isn't
practical. A good many computer users must use Windows, either because
of corporate edicts, need for specific applications, or lack of
required technical skills. For them, running Linux isn't an option.

Bull***.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.