Reasons Why People Use Windows
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: David W. Hodgins on 9 Mar 2010 13:09 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:35:35 -0500, Bad Boy Charlie <Legba(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > That was an interesting and informative reply Dave. Are you suggesting > that with a Linux OS there is no need for any AV or malware 3rd party > app? TY - Charlie That's correct. There is av software available for linux, such as clamav, or avg, however they are only intended to catch windows viruses, so linux can be used as a mail/file server for the windows systems. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: (PeteCresswell) on 9 Mar 2010 13:19 Per David W. Hodgins: >If they were working fine, and not constantly getting infected with >viruses, or trojans that were doing things like harvesting their banking >info, people would not be replacing their m$ crapware with linux. How much of Linux's immunity to the above is inherent in the OS and how much is because Linux boxes are a small percentage of the total and the Bad Guys just are not targeting them? -- PeteCresswell
From: David W. Hodgins on 9 Mar 2010 13:53 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:19:51 -0500, (PeteCresswell) <x(a)y.invalid> wrote: > How much of Linux's immunity to the above is inherent in the OS > and how much is because Linux boxes are a small percentage of the > total and the Bad Guys just are not targeting them? It's definitely both. With m$, modules will normally be loaded in the same order, on many systems. If an attacker can figure out a buffer overflow in one module, that overwrites the next module, and then transfer control to the overwritten second module, that attack will work on all similar windows systems. Most linux distributions use a randomizer that select which modules will go where, so you'll find very few, with the modules loaded in the same physical order. Even on the same computer, after a reboot, the order may change. Most linux distributions also strongly discourage users from running applications, such as web browsers, with the equivalent of an administrators account. Some don't even allow it, until the user figures out how to assign a password to the root account. The file system and network security have always been in the kernel, rather then being added on later. When a bug is found in linux, the updates tend to happen much faster. Dns poisoning is easy to avoid by running your own name server. All it takes to do that, is to run one command to install the server, one to start it (or reboot), and alter one setting to get all network accessing programs to use it. Changing that setting can be done by editing one text file, or, with most distributions, a gui is a available that will edit the file for you. For users who are afraid linux will be to complicated for them, they can always use a Mac, which is based on bsd linux. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: Wolf K on 9 Mar 2010 14:27 (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Per David W. Hodgins: >> If they were working fine, and not constantly getting infected with >> viruses, or trojans that were doing things like harvesting their banking >> info, people would not be replacing their m$ crapware with linux. > > How much of Linux's immunity to the above is inherent in the OS > and how much is because Linux boxes are a small percentage of the > total and the Bad Guys just are not targeting them? It's a mix of factors, hard to say which is most important. AIUI, Unix/Linux's system of permissions makes it harder to write malware to infect those OSs. But in principle it's possible. There is no such thing as a 100% secure OS. An OS is essentially a system of requests for services, and requests can be intercepted. That's where malware starts its attack. Windows also has levels of permission, but for convenience sake they are not rigorously enforced. Eg, you can boot without supplying a password. Also, for various reasons, many people hate MS, and so most of the malware effort goes into attacking Windows. The fact that banks, etc, use Windows is also a motive: malware is lucrative. Also, all Linuxes (Linuces?) require that you set up a user and password when you install them, even if there is only one user. You can't boot without your password, and you can't install software without supplying the admin (superuser) password. This adds a layer of security: malware would have to supply the admin password in order to install itself, but that password is not in the user's keychain, so the malware would have to get to the admin level of permissions to get the password, which it can't do without a password. Nice catch-22. That's how I understand it, anyhow. The rigorously enforced sytem of permissions is IMO the only real advantage of Linux. I think Windows 7 should use the same system of layered permissions. Might annoy some people who want to just turn on the machine, but there is no reason to let fools' desires for convenience endanger us all. cheers, wolf k.
From: Greg Russell on 9 Mar 2010 14:39
In news:4b9699ad$0$3935$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com, Wolf K <wekirch(a)sympatico.ca> typed: >> So you acknowledge the utility of OpenOffice, yet won't use it? You >> create your own problems, don't you? > > Gee, but you're dimwitted twit. Read what I wrote. I _detest_ MS > Office, so why would I use OO, which is a near-clone of MS Office? OO is far more functional the M$-Office, and is most definitely NOT a clone because it provides all the functionality, and then some.. > And for the record: the problem is the design of MS Office and Open > Office. Klutzy is the nicest thing I can say about them. For someone who steadfastly denies using OO, your opinion about it is worthless. >>> The fact is that most Windows apps are designed to do what most >>> people want to do most of the time. >> >> So are the freely-available open-source programs that do the same >> things. > > Huh? > > Oh, sorry, I see that you think that there are are no open source > programs for Windows. You've obviously never used http://sourceforge.net if you hold such an ignorant opinion, but that's in keeping with the rest of your mindless diatribe. > End of discussion. Yeah, crawl back in your own arsehole. |