A question from LINUX beginner - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: A question from LINUX beginner

MBUnit wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-07-014-20-SC&tbovrmode=1
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You've summed up the chief reasons for lack of malware on linux.
1. It's a much less widely used system, so doesn't present as an
attractive target.
2. Despite statements by earlier posters, once one gets beyond simple
internet access linux requires a higher level of computer savvy to use
than windows and linux users will tend to be less gullible targets.
3. Security although available for windows is more strictly enforced in
the linux world.

I've been running windows for years, follow good (but not paranoid)
procedures and have never had a virus. I guard against hardware failure
by adopting a good backup strategy which also leaves me less concerned
if I should pick up malware. My personal data is protected with truecrypt.
Dave Cohen

Re: A question from LINUX beginner

Dave Cohen wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


But you see that's the problem for Linux, as it needs those same vast
non computer savvy users to come to Linux in order for Linux to come
above a 1% usage on the desktop world wide.

You can say this, that and the other, but the security rest in the hands
of those who use the O/S, sitting behind the wheel. If they point,
click, and approve it not knowing the ramifications of the action, Linux
is not going to save them either. Linux is not bullet-proof,  and there
are yet un-discovered holes in that O/S that are not being exposed due
to its lack of usage over all, and the virus writers are not coming
after Linux -- *hard*.

And I'll repeat it. As long as human beings are involved with the
creation and usage of something, it's not ever going to be perfect no
matter what it is. If Linux winds-up in the hands of the vast non
computer savvy users as they are on MS, it has got and will have
problems as the virus writers come after it, on a game, set and match.




Re: A question from LINUX beginner


"MBUnit" <MB.Unit> wrote in message
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I don't want to run into philosophy, since it is too smart for me. I already
understand both Windows and Linux can be infected by Virus. Now I want know
if LINUX is better than WINDOWS in security if we put them into the same
situation, say same volume of savvy users. If YES I also want to know the
degree of how LINUX is better than WINDOWS in security, almost the same, or
much better?

Johnson






Re: A question from LINUX beginner

On 03/20/2009 08:39 PM, Johnson L sent:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

In a special way, this is a comparison of apples and oranges.  The bad
folks have mostly chosen the Windows platform for their targets.

Put an unpatched, unprotected Windows system on the internet and in mere
minutes this "Honey Pot" system will have been attacked and infested.
Not nearly so with a similar Linux system.

However, in fairness to Windows users, a very skilled person can have a
Windows system effectively hardened given the proper resources.

Most folks can make a good argument for no antivirus applications on
Linux systems.  However, no less than Microsoft themselves says you
should have antivirus applications in place on Windows systems.  Many
Linux users will still have antivirus applications in use to keep some
malware from getting to /Windows/ systems.

Ask a knowledgeable Linux user if they are worried about the Conficker
worm...

Pete
--
1PW  @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Re: A question from LINUX beginner

Johnson L wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I would say that Windows workstation O/S Windows XP and down are
no match to Linux as far as security is concerned due to those O/S(s)
being open by default O/S(s). But in the right hands of one knowing how
to harden a NT based O/S such as XP to attack, with plenty of articles
and books on how to do it along with using safe-hex computing practices,
then XP can be secured very well too.

Now for Vista, I think it's the best secured of the Windows desktop
O/S(s) for the following reasons:

1) It's a closed by default O/S with a lot of protected areas of the O/S.

2) It uses UAC and as long as UAC is enabled, one is never an user admin
with full admin rights when running on the Internet, as they are only a
Standard user with Standard user rights until privileged escalation is
required to full-admin-rights.

The full-admin-rights are only for the moment of privileged escalation
and then admin user is returned to a Standard user. UAC mitigates damage
as something such as a malware runs under the context of user rights. If
the rights of the admin-user is Standard user rights as admin-user, this
mitigates damage that can be done.

3) Vista is using reversed engineered Linux and FreeBSD code in the O/S
kernel to better protect itself, such as ASLR and many other things to
better protect the O/S.

4) A lot more software is being developed for Vista that only requires
Standard user rights to execute on Vista, unlike its predecessors.

5) There are articles and books on how to further harden Vista to attack
as well.

Nothing is bullet-proof as you know, but in the right hands IMO, Vista
right there with Linux that's the way I see it. People just don't know
it, because they only look at the cake, cookies and  eye candy. They
have never went under the hood of  Vista to look and there are really no
books to explain it, only the cake, cookies and eye-candy books.









Re: A question from LINUX beginner

Johnson L wrote:
[snip]
Quoted text here. Click to load it

impossible to say - it depends too much on the user... and the version
of windows, as it happens (vista has some significant differences over
previous versions)...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Re: A question from LINUX beginner

Johnson L wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

the confusion stems from the fact that that is in fact false...

the first academic treatment of computer viruses had them replicating on
a professionally administered unix environment without the cooperation
of the admin...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

as others have pointed out, it's a less popular target - that's why you
don't hear about virus and other malware attacks on that platform, which
in turn is why people have gotten the mistaken impression that the
platform is virus-free...

it also tends to be used by people who know a thing or two about
technology and security and they tend to do things like only get
software from trusted sources and run with least privileges...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

there's no such thing as far as i know...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

Site Timeline