Jeff wrote:
[color=blue]
> The majority of Virus's are loaded onto machines by people downloading
> software from non-reputable sources and running them on their machines.
> You would have to be an administrator in windows (root in linux) to load
> these
> programs. So to say that it can't harm a linux box is not necessarily
> true. And since so many people to day have their own computer to say that
> another person can't load something that would harm your computer doesn't
> matter.
>
> A friend could send you something that is infected and "trusting" that
> friend you load it and infect your computer.
>
> "Well thats ok, I just have to delete that user and start over with a new
> account", well if you were running an anti-virus that wouldn't be a
> problem and you wouldn't have to do that and you would be helping to stop
> the propogation of the virus not to mention you probably wouldn't know you
> need to delete the account and start over with out some way of detecting
> the virus in the first place.
>
> I don't care how much you love linux, there are free anti-virus scanners
> available (try avast.com) and it would be in everyone's best interest if
> everyone used them. Every OS on the market today has had virus's
> targeted at them, it would be immature and just plain stupid not to
> protect yourself in some way...[/color]

Well there is one flaw in your thinking there. A virus needs some type of
executable to embed itself in. Under linux, unless explicitly given root
access, it can only embed itself in files located in user space. Therein
lies the problem for the virus: User space normally has no executables.
Only data files.

Applications are generally installed into root space where they cannot be
modified. And even *if* you install an infected application, when it is
executed, it still only has user permissions. So even if installed into
root space, it still cannot modify anything in root so it cannot infect any
other applications. So even running an infected application is fairly
useless for the virus.

The only exception is if the user runs an infected application with root
permissions. Then the virus would be free to do whatever it wants anywhere
it wants. However, I can count the apps I need to run under root
permissions on one single hand. Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, Synaptic, and
occasionally even Synaptic which is used to install packages in the system.
So if any 3rd party app has instructions to run it under root permissions
without an exceedingly extremely good reason...there isn't a flag big
enough or red enough to describe the flag that would be raised.

And even Synaptic is something you generally only usewhen setting up the
system and then usually very rarely again and which I can rest safely
assured is not going to be infected. So bottom line, friends can send me
all the infected stuff they want. Doesn't bother me one bit. There is no
way for the virus to spread. That is why Linux viruses are so ineffective
and pointless.

Now of course, exploits do occasionally exist but it's a pretty rare
occurance and generally quickly fixed when found.

In the end, linux viruses can and do of course exist but they have a by
magnitudes more difficult life in that environment than under windows.
Windows environment is comparable to a petri dish under flawless conditions
networked to other dishes with similarly flawless conditions. A virus in
Linux on the other and...well..it's sort of like a fish trying to swim in a
desert with not a drop of water in sight.

The biggest security issue I see for Linux is plain old Social Engineering
in trying to get the user to do something that will compromise their
system. It's hard to protect a system from a user that willingly tries to
destroy it.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 02:26:00 -0700, Mick wrote:
[color=blue]
> You get today's prize of being "THE ULTIMATE COCKHEAD"
>
> "Bill" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> My customer has had Vista for three months. He called me. Vista is in
>> an endless loop. The Windows Explorer fails repeatedly and restarts.
>> If you are lucky, the loop will last long enough to see that one of the
>> anti virus programs has identified a virus. It was too stupid to
>> prevent the virus from infecting the system. With a great deal of
>> effort, I was able to run msconfig from the task manager, but to no
>> avail. Windows explorer continues to fail repeatedly. I tried
>> restoring to an earlier date. This attempt also failed. The restore
>> function is broken and the shadow is not working correctly. It may
>> have been broken by the virus, for all I know. I tried restoring the
>> system using F11, but the customer had ignorantly formatted the restore
>> partition (Compaq). There is no restore cdroms. He didn't get any and
>> he didn't make any. At this point, he can order the restore disks from
>> Compaq,
>> and
>> he can use his computer in the meanwhile with an installation of
>> PCLINUXOS.
>> I may tell him to try out Linux before ordering the disks.
>>
>> A number of my customers have shown a great deal of excitement, when
>> they first see the Linux desktop. They find the gui easier to use than
>> Windows. Of course, I spend a little time setting it up for them.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
>> News==---- [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
>> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
>> Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>[/color][/color]

Thanks for the sexy compliment, I guess. I brought the computer to the
customer and he was quite pleased. He likes Linux. His sound works,
which it didn't do even when Vista was working, more or less. It kept
crashing..duh. He especially liked all the free programs and games that
I had installed for him using synaptic. I gave him a 45 minute training
lesson on using Linux. I showed him how to download the free programs
and how to update his current programs. Just three buttons. I told him
that if he wanted, he could contact HP for the restore disks. He said
that he wasn't very interested in putting Vista back on his computer.
Linux was much faster and didn't crash like Vista. I thought that Vista
came in the Ultimate Edition...and since I don't use it, I guess I can
pass the Ultimate Cockhead hat back to you....you sexy thing...

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Hello,

Things in Windows Vista are pretty much the same as the linux
environment you describe, thanks to UAC.

Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this will
do much to better the security environment of Windows.

--
-JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
Windows Vista Support FAQ - [url]http://www.jimmah.com/vista/[/url]

Jimmy Brush wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hello,
>
> Things in Windows Vista are pretty much the same as the linux
> environment you describe, thanks to UAC.[/color]

Not entirely, and I will explain why. The key difference is that UAC is a
reaction, sudo/gksudo in linux is an action.

Basically, UAC will react if the app tries to do anything the system deems
potentially unsafe asking the user for permission.

Now if this occurs in an application that the user knows will *never*
trigger an UAC prompt then the user has the ability to make an educated
decision to not allow the action.

However, if this occurs in an application that does occasionally trigger
Valid and safe UAC prompts, but now has become infected and triggers an
unsafe prompt, then the user no longer has any means of distinguishing the
good prompt from the bad prompt.

In the linux case on the other hand, I as a user have to give advance
permission. I consciously have to decide if I want that application to have
the ability to modify the system. If I start the app without those
permissions there is no way it can gain them. So the above case where a
confusion between valid / invalid prompts can occur does not even exist.

[color=blue]
>
> Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
> the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this will
> do much to better the security environment of Windows.[/color]

That I agree with. If windows apps get to where they will *never* under any
circumstances trigger UAC permissions then and only then can UAC be
effective. And that's where I think UAC's major weakness is. There will
likely always be plenty of crapware like sand on the beach triggering UAC
permissions. And users are generally not intelligent enough to *not* use
such crapware...rendering UAC useless and effectively opening the door for
virus and malware.



--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

<snip>[color=blue]
> Basically, UAC will react if the app tries to do anything the system deems
> potentially unsafe asking the user for permission.
>[/color]

This is incorrect. UAC only naturally occurs when the user is performing
an administrative action, in the same way that a password prompt only
occurs from sudo when a user is performing an administrative action.

UAC is explicitly tied to a user action, like double-clicking a file or
clicking on a button - it is not reactive.
[color=blue]
> Now if this occurs in an application that the user knows will *never*
> trigger an UAC prompt then the user has the ability to make an educated
> decision to not allow the action.
>
> However, if this occurs in an application that does occasionally trigger
> Valid and safe UAC prompts, but now has become infected and triggers an
> unsafe prompt, then the user no longer has any means of distinguishing the
> good prompt from the bad prompt.[/color]

A user will only ever see a "correct" uac prompt when they are
performing a clearly marked (shielded) admin action.

Obviously, malware can still "fake out the user" by pretending to be a
admin action... but this is so in linux as well.

UAC and SUDO only prevent applications from doing things that the user
doesn't initiate - they don't protect the user from themself.

The same good design that linux uses to protect against this (having
administrative tools in an unmodifable location on the file system) has
to be enforced in Windows too.

That is why I get a funny feeling in my tummy whenever I see users and,
more disturbingly, programmers that want to automate the process upon
installation of the program of enabling write access to their program
files folder :).
[color=blue]
> In the linux case on the other hand, I as a user have to give advance
> permission. I consciously have to decide if I want that application to have
> the ability to modify the system. If I start the app without those
> permissions there is no way it can gain them. So the above case where a
> confusion between valid / invalid prompts can occur does not even exist.
>[/color]

This is the same in Windows - you have to intend to initiate an admin
action by actually performing the action (clicking a special button or
double-clicking a program marked with a shield), and the system checks
to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a prompt when you
did not intiate an action, it is invalid.

This is the same thing that happens in linux - you have to intend to
initiate an admin action by runnign sudo on an application, and the
system checks to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a
prompt asking for your root password when you did not initiate an
action, it is invalid.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
>> the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this will
>> do much to better the security environment of Windows.[/color]
>
> That I agree with. If windows apps get to where they will *never* under any
> circumstances trigger UAC permissions then and only then can UAC be
> effective. And that's where I think UAC's major weakness is. There will
> likely always be plenty of crapware like sand on the beach triggering UAC
> permissions. And users are generally not intelligent enough to *not* use
> such crapware...rendering UAC useless and effectively opening the door for
> virus and malware.[/color]

Certainly, the next generation of crapware will be the kind that tries
to trick the user into running them as admin. I agree with you 100%, and
users need to be vigilant and ensure that they only run programs with
admin power that they trust.

I am only disagreeing with you that linux's sudo model somehow protects
against this - it does not.


--
-JB
Microsoft MVP - Windows Shell/User
Windows Vista Support FAQ - [url]http://www.jimmah.com/vista/[/url]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:52:44 -0400, Jimmy Brush wrote:
[color=blue]
> <snip>[color=green]
>> Basically, UAC will react if the app tries to do anything the system
>> deems potentially unsafe asking the user for permission.
>>
>>[/color]
> This is incorrect. UAC only naturally occurs when the user is performing
> an administrative action, in the same way that a password prompt only
> occurs from sudo when a user is performing an administrative action.
>
> UAC is explicitly tied to a user action, like double-clicking a file or
> clicking on a button - it is not reactive.
>[color=green]
>> Now if this occurs in an application that the user knows will *never*
>> trigger an UAC prompt then the user has the ability to make an educated
>> decision to not allow the action.
>>
>> However, if this occurs in an application that does occasionally
>> trigger Valid and safe UAC prompts, but now has become infected and
>> triggers an unsafe prompt, then the user no longer has any means of
>> distinguishing the good prompt from the bad prompt.[/color]
>
> A user will only ever see a "correct" uac prompt when they are
> performing a clearly marked (shielded) admin action.
>
> Obviously, malware can still "fake out the user" by pretending to be a
> admin action... but this is so in linux as well.
>
> UAC and SUDO only prevent applications from doing things that the user
> doesn't initiate - they don't protect the user from themself.
>
> The same good design that linux uses to protect against this (having
> administrative tools in an unmodifable location on the file system) has
> to be enforced in Windows too.
>
> That is why I get a funny feeling in my tummy whenever I see users and,
> more disturbingly, programmers that want to automate the process upon
> installation of the program of enabling write access to their program
> files folder :).
>[color=green]
>> In the linux case on the other hand, I as a user have to give advance
>> permission. I consciously have to decide if I want that application to
>> have the ability to modify the system. If I start the app without those
>> permissions there is no way it can gain them. So the above case where a
>> confusion between valid / invalid prompts can occur does not even
>> exist.
>>
>>[/color]
> This is the same in Windows - you have to intend to initiate an admin
> action by actually performing the action (clicking a special button or
> double-clicking a program marked with a shield), and the system checks
> to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a prompt when you
> did not intiate an action, it is invalid.
>
> This is the same thing that happens in linux - you have to intend to
> initiate an admin action by runnign sudo on an application, and the
> system checks to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a
> prompt asking for your root password when you did not initiate an
> action, it is invalid.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
>>> the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this will
>>> do much to better the security environment of Windows.[/color]
>>
>> That I agree with. If windows apps get to where they will *never* under
>> any circumstances trigger UAC permissions then and only then can UAC be
>> effective. And that's where I think UAC's major weakness is. There will
>> likely always be plenty of crapware like sand on the beach triggering
>> UAC permissions. And users are generally not intelligent enough to
>> *not* use such crapware...rendering UAC useless and effectively opening
>> the door for virus and malware.[/color]
>
> Certainly, the next generation of crapware will be the kind that tries
> to trick the user into running them as admin. I agree with you 100%, and
> users need to be vigilant and ensure that they only run programs with
> admin power that they trust.
>
> I am only disagreeing with you that linux's sudo model somehow protects
> against this - it does not.[/color]

Windows has never been a secure operating system. UAC is like having a
steel door with locks and Styrofoam walls. Since the malware and virus
business is so profitable to the gangs that utilize them, it is probably
only a matter of time before they figure out a way to breach Linux.
Proprietary drivers is probably one area that they can work with. This
is probably the best argument for keeping the entire system open source.

With Linux unprotected, I have never experienced a virus. With Windows,
I can not leave it on for very long unprotected without picking up
spyware, malware, and viruses. If something should infect one of my
Linux browsers, I can delete the hidden .dir in the user area and return
the browser to its pristine condition. I said, if it should, it hasn't
happened yet. Occasionally, I will run rkhunter or clam to check things,
but nothing has turned up yet. My weakest link on my system is the
Windows XP in a virtual machine. I have it heavily protected. I have a
fat32 partition for sending files to a 'common area'. I use avast and
clamscan to check that partition. At one time, an anti-virus and spyware
program were adequate to protect your windows system, but I believe that
we are entering a new era, where the protection will be overwhelmed by
the efforts of the gangs.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:03:11 -0500, Bill wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:52:44 -0400, Jimmy Brush wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <snip>[color=darkred]
>>> Basically, UAC will react if the app tries to do anything the system
>>> deems potentially unsafe asking the user for permission.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> This is incorrect. UAC only naturally occurs when the user is
>> performing an administrative action, in the same way that a password
>> prompt only occurs from sudo when a user is performing an
>> administrative action.
>>
>> UAC is explicitly tied to a user action, like double-clicking a file or
>> clicking on a button - it is not reactive.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Now if this occurs in an application that the user knows will *never*
>>> trigger an UAC prompt then the user has the ability to make an
>>> educated decision to not allow the action.
>>>
>>> However, if this occurs in an application that does occasionally
>>> trigger Valid and safe UAC prompts, but now has become infected and
>>> triggers an unsafe prompt, then the user no longer has any means of
>>> distinguishing the good prompt from the bad prompt.[/color]
>>
>> A user will only ever see a "correct" uac prompt when they are
>> performing a clearly marked (shielded) admin action.
>>
>> Obviously, malware can still "fake out the user" by pretending to be a
>> admin action... but this is so in linux as well.
>>
>> UAC and SUDO only prevent applications from doing things that the user
>> doesn't initiate - they don't protect the user from themself.
>>
>> The same good design that linux uses to protect against this (having
>> administrative tools in an unmodifable location on the file system) has
>> to be enforced in Windows too.
>>
>> That is why I get a funny feeling in my tummy whenever I see users and,
>> more disturbingly, programmers that want to automate the process upon
>> installation of the program of enabling write access to their program
>> files folder :).
>>[color=darkred]
>>> In the linux case on the other hand, I as a user have to give advance
>>> permission. I consciously have to decide if I want that application to
>>> have the ability to modify the system. If I start the app without
>>> those permissions there is no way it can gain them. So the above case
>>> where a confusion between valid / invalid prompts can occur does not
>>> even exist.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> This is the same in Windows - you have to intend to initiate an admin
>> action by actually performing the action (clicking a special button or
>> double-clicking a program marked with a shield), and the system checks
>> to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a prompt when
>> you did not intiate an action, it is invalid.
>>
>> This is the same thing that happens in linux - you have to intend to
>> initiate an admin action by runnign sudo on an application, and the
>> system checks to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a
>> prompt asking for your root password when you did not initiate an
>> action, it is invalid.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
>>>> the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this
>>>> will do much to better the security environment of Windows.
>>>
>>> That I agree with. If windows apps get to where they will *never*
>>> under any circumstances trigger UAC permissions then and only then can
>>> UAC be effective. And that's where I think UAC's major weakness is.
>>> There will likely always be plenty of crapware like sand on the beach
>>> triggering UAC permissions. And users are generally not intelligent
>>> enough to *not* use such crapware...rendering UAC useless and
>>> effectively opening the door for virus and malware.[/color]
>>
>> Certainly, the next generation of crapware will be the kind that tries
>> to trick the user into running them as admin. I agree with you 100%,
>> and users need to be vigilant and ensure that they only run programs
>> with admin power that they trust.
>>
>> I am only disagreeing with you that linux's sudo model somehow protects
>> against this - it does not.[/color]
>
> Windows has never been a secure operating system. UAC is like having a
> steel door with locks and Styrofoam walls. Since the malware and virus
> business is so profitable to the gangs that utilize them, it is probably
> only a matter of time before they figure out a way to breach Linux.
> Proprietary drivers is probably one area that they can work with. This
> is probably the best argument for keeping the entire system open source.
>
> With Linux unprotected, I have never experienced a virus. With Windows,
> I can not leave it on for very long unprotected without picking up
> spyware, malware, and viruses. If something should infect one of my
> Linux browsers, I can delete the hidden .dir in the user area and return
> the browser to its pristine condition. I said, if it should, it hasn't
> happened yet. Occasionally, I will run rkhunter or clam to check
> things, but nothing has turned up yet. My weakest link on my system is
> the Windows XP in a virtual machine. I have it heavily protected. I
> have a fat32 partition for sending files to a 'common area'. I use
> avast and clamscan to check that partition. At one time, an anti-virus
> and spyware program were adequate to protect your windows system, but I
> believe that we are entering a new era, where the protection will be
> overwhelmed by the efforts of the gangs.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
> Total Privacy via Encryption =----[/color]

For those who are using Linux, you can install clam and use the following
command to check all your hidden dir
su
password
clamscan -r .*

or

sudo clamscan -r .*



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?

Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers used
world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that the
thieves' want? To what benefit or advantage.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Bill" <bigbill52@yuckawin.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.09.15.01.39@yuckawin.com...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:52:44 -0400, Jimmy Brush wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <snip>[color=darkred]
>>> Basically, UAC will react if the app tries to do anything the system
>>> deems potentially unsafe asking the user for permission.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> This is incorrect. UAC only naturally occurs when the user is performing
>> an administrative action, in the same way that a password prompt only
>> occurs from sudo when a user is performing an administrative action.
>>
>> UAC is explicitly tied to a user action, like double-clicking a file or
>> clicking on a button - it is not reactive.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Now if this occurs in an application that the user knows will *never*
>>> trigger an UAC prompt then the user has the ability to make an educated
>>> decision to not allow the action.
>>>
>>> However, if this occurs in an application that does occasionally
>>> trigger Valid and safe UAC prompts, but now has become infected and
>>> triggers an unsafe prompt, then the user no longer has any means of
>>> distinguishing the good prompt from the bad prompt.[/color]
>>
>> A user will only ever see a "correct" uac prompt when they are
>> performing a clearly marked (shielded) admin action.
>>
>> Obviously, malware can still "fake out the user" by pretending to be a
>> admin action... but this is so in linux as well.
>>
>> UAC and SUDO only prevent applications from doing things that the user
>> doesn't initiate - they don't protect the user from themself.
>>
>> The same good design that linux uses to protect against this (having
>> administrative tools in an unmodifable location on the file system) has
>> to be enforced in Windows too.
>>
>> That is why I get a funny feeling in my tummy whenever I see users and,
>> more disturbingly, programmers that want to automate the process upon
>> installation of the program of enabling write access to their program
>> files folder :).
>>[color=darkred]
>>> In the linux case on the other hand, I as a user have to give advance
>>> permission. I consciously have to decide if I want that application to
>>> have the ability to modify the system. If I start the app without those
>>> permissions there is no way it can gain them. So the above case where a
>>> confusion between valid / invalid prompts can occur does not even
>>> exist.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> This is the same in Windows - you have to intend to initiate an admin
>> action by actually performing the action (clicking a special button or
>> double-clicking a program marked with a shield), and the system checks
>> to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a prompt when you
>> did not intiate an action, it is invalid.
>>
>> This is the same thing that happens in linux - you have to intend to
>> initiate an admin action by runnign sudo on an application, and the
>> system checks to make sure this is true by prompting you. If you get a
>> prompt asking for your root password when you did not initiate an
>> action, it is invalid.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Once application developers start writing programs that don't require
>>>> the Windows equivalent of "root" permissions to run, I think this will
>>>> do much to better the security environment of Windows.
>>>
>>> That I agree with. If windows apps get to where they will *never* under
>>> any circumstances trigger UAC permissions then and only then can UAC be
>>> effective. And that's where I think UAC's major weakness is. There will
>>> likely always be plenty of crapware like sand on the beach triggering
>>> UAC permissions. And users are generally not intelligent enough to
>>> *not* use such crapware...rendering UAC useless and effectively opening
>>> the door for virus and malware.[/color]
>>
>> Certainly, the next generation of crapware will be the kind that tries
>> to trick the user into running them as admin. I agree with you 100%, and
>> users need to be vigilant and ensure that they only run programs with
>> admin power that they trust.
>>
>> I am only disagreeing with you that linux's sudo model somehow protects
>> against this - it does not.[/color]
>
> Windows has never been a secure operating system. UAC is like having a
> steel door with locks and Styrofoam walls. Since the malware and virus
> business is so profitable to the gangs that utilize them, it is probably
> only a matter of time before they figure out a way to breach Linux.
> Proprietary drivers is probably one area that they can work with. This
> is probably the best argument for keeping the entire system open source.
>
> With Linux unprotected, I have never experienced a virus. With Windows,
> I can not leave it on for very long unprotected without picking up
> spyware, malware, and viruses. If something should infect one of my
> Linux browsers, I can delete the hidden .dir in the user area and return
> the browser to its pristine condition. I said, if it should, it hasn't
> happened yet. Occasionally, I will run rkhunter or clam to check things,
> but nothing has turned up yet. My weakest link on my system is the
> Windows XP in a virtual machine. I have it heavily protected. I have a
> fat32 partition for sending files to a 'common area'. I use avast and
> clamscan to check that partition. At one time, an anti-virus and spyware
> program were adequate to protect your windows system, but I believe that
> we are entering a new era, where the protection will be overwhelmed by
> the efforts of the gangs.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----[/color]

Richard Urban wrote:
[color=blue]
> So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?
>
> Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers used
> world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that the
> thieves' want? To what benefit or advantage.[/color]

Well I think the number is a little larger than 1%, especially if you
consider world-wide. I don't think that the rest of the world is quite as
MS friendly as the US. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Richard Urban wrote:[color=blue]
> So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?
>
> Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers
> used world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that
> the thieves' want?...[/color]

One more network-connected platform. Every 'bot is worth money to a
modern hacker, and a linux server is a very tasty morsel indeed.

* Stephan Rose:[color=blue]
> Richard Urban wrote:
>[color=green]
>> So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?
>>
>> Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers used
>> world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that the
>> thieves' want? To what benefit or advantage.[/color]
>
> Well I think the number is a little larger than 1%, especially if you
> consider world-wide.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I don't think that the rest of the world is quite as
> MS friendly as the US. =)[/color]

China. There, it's free Linux or free XP and/or Vista.
Windows wins hands down. ;-)


-Michael

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:12:46 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
[color=blue]
> So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?
>
> Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers
> used world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that
> the thieves' want? To what benefit or advantage.[/color]

Such arrogance is the hallmark of Microsoft and its minions...Keep up the
attitude and more people will go for the alternatives. In fact, I
encourage you...Wallow in your arrogance...Take lessons from Steve.

I have never experienced a virus and I have never found one using
clamscan or rkhunter.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Face it Bill. You can't GIVE Linux away in China. Everyone is too bust
pirating and stealing Windows XP and Vista.

Whatever you may think about Linux - IT IS NOT A WINNER!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Bill" <bigbill52@yuckawin.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.09.23.08.17@yuckawin.com...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:12:46 -0400, Richard Urban wrote:
>[color=green]
>> So, with Linux "unprotected" you have never experienced a virus?
>>
>> Gee. Who would write exploit code for 1/2 of 1% of all the computers
>> used world wide. What does "any" Linux user have on his computer that
>> the thieves' want? To what benefit or advantage.[/color]
>
> Such arrogance is the hallmark of Microsoft and its minions...Keep up the
> attitude and more people will go for the alternatives. In fact, I
> encourage you...Wallow in your arrogance...Take lessons from Steve.
>
> I have never experienced a virus and I have never found one using
> clamscan or rkhunter.
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> [url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----[/color]

Bill wrote:

Such arrogance...

Coming from a linux loser that's a real hoot!

| is the hallmark of Microsoft and its minions

....I hope you and your fellow linux minions, didn't forget to bow down,
pray and pay homage to RS & LT everyday before you fire up those
unprotected linux box.

| Keep up the attitude...

Oh, don't worry, what comes around goes around.

| and more people will go for the alternatives.

In your dreams sweetheart...only in your dreams.

| In fact, I encourage you...Wallow in your arrogance...Take lessons
from Steve.

Why, when you, doris day (snort) and all the rest of the linux losers
are such stunning examples of as**oles!

| I have never experienced a virus and I have never found one using
clamscan or rkhunter.

Go ahead...make my day!
(smirk)
Frank

Richard Urban wrote:
[color=blue]
> Face it Bill. You can't GIVE Linux away in China. Everyone is too bust
> pirating and stealing Windows XP and Vista.
>
> Whatever you may think about Linux - IT IS NOT A WINNER![/color]

Ehh Richard, I wouldn't quite say it like that.

I just upgraded to the alpha version of the latest Ubuntu today and I gotta
say and let me tell you the gap to windows is getting extremely narrow.

The only two weak spots I honestly really see remaining:
- Third party application/game support
- Handling video driver update when upgrading the Kernel could be smoother
as I had to manually reinstall my nVidia driver.

Though to be entirely honest, I can't even 100% say on the nVidia driver
issue that it isn't an issue with my system. This install is on it's 4th OS
release now has been switched from release to beta to release and now to
alpha release.

So on the driver issue I had, I cannot rule out a fault in my own system.
I'd have to see how things behave on a clean install to be able to rule my
system out and don't feel like doing that.

And this is looking from the desktop perspective. The only thing I still use
Windows for at home is to play games on it. I literally reduced Windows to
nothing more than my PS2.

From the *server* perspective however, having two windows servers right now
I can only tell ya one thing. NEVER AGAIN!

One of the servers just got infected so insanely bad with viruses that it
was just pathetic. It went from 0 viruses to swarming like a friggin
beehive overnight.

There is no way I will ever again in my life use Windows on a server...

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから