Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 26 Mar 2010 00:52 Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in news:MPG.2615dc857552341898a217(a)us.news.astraweb.com: > In article <Xns9D46D2860D081HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247>, > bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com says... >> Actually, I didn't say chip creep was an issue on soldered chips; If >> you understood the principles behind chip creep in the first place >> that wouldn't even be a question you'd consider... Chip creep only >> applies to socketed chips. >> > > While chip creep may only apply to socketed chips, I've seen chips, > actually the pins, come unsoldered by hot/cold cycles. We had a real > issue with that in the military in at one point. I've seen finals in CB radios do it too, but that was usually do to extensive usage and cold solder points to begin with. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: RayLopez99 on 26 Mar 2010 05:09 On Mar 26, 6:26 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > FromTheRafters wrote: > > You need AV to guard against the off chance that you encounter a virus. > > In Windows, yes, AV is absolutely necessary. Some people seem to be > asserting that it is not necessary with Linux. Is that true? Well well stated question, and right on point, thank you. Anybody in the Linux camp or otherwise care to answer ToolPackinMama ? I can't hear you. RL
From: RayLopez99 on 26 Mar 2010 05:13 On Mar 26, 10:03 am, ToolPackinMama <philnbl...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > I could pick any AV protected Windows PC at random and probably find > malware active on it. The oddity is finding one that isn't infected by > something. Nope. Not true. "could" sounds like metaphysics. something not detected by AV sw does not exist. I concede Linux is more secure "in theory", but "de facto" *with the proper AV s/w in place*, Windows is just as secure *for those people that are not clueless (i.e., not deliberately installing malware by mistake or otherwise)*. Hence my second thread, about comparing apples with apples. Actually when you posed the question in your prior post I thought we were in that newer thread. RL
From: Lusotec on 26 Mar 2010 07:14 ToolPackinMama wrote: > FromTheRafters wrote: >> You need AV to guard against the off chance that you encounter a virus. > > In Windows, yes, AV is absolutely necessary. Some people seem to be > asserting that it is not necessary with Linux. Is that true? There is little malware for GNU/Linux. Almost all is in the form of root kits. The tools rkhunter and chkrootkit are used to hunt them. The few virus that affected GNU/Linux are all inactive, and there are no reports of new virus. Security vulnerabilities in software, and the worms that exploit them are another threat. For that, making regular updates, and using mandatory access control are the best protections. Users are the biggest propagation vector for malware, specifically torjans. There is a prototype trojan for GNU/Linux that uses *.directory files, but like all executable scripts/binaries, execute permission are required. This alone, is a great way to prevent clueless users from running trojans. Users that have enough knowledge to circumvent no exec file permissions and go out of their way to run executables they received by email or downloaded from the internet are a bigger problem. For that setting the noexec parameter for the file systems the user can write to are a great way to stop these users shooting them selfs. Regards.
From: Lusotec on 26 Mar 2010 07:38
RayLopez99 wrote: > ToolPackinMama wrote: >> I could pick any AV protected Windows PC at random and probably find >> malware active on it. The oddity is finding one that isn't infected by >> something. > > Nope. Not true. "could" sounds like metaphysics. something not > detected by AV sw does not exist. HA HA HA. All *new* malware is not detected by AV programs. Even the stats you posted show tha tthe best AV finds only 70% of malware. > I concede Linux is more secure "in theory", but "de facto" *with the > proper AV s/w in place*, Windows is just as secure *for those people > that are not clueless (i.e., not deliberately installing malware by > mistake or otherwise)*. History of malware proves you totally *wrong*. Windows has a history full of malware that requires absolutely no user intervention. Windows *is* far more insecure than GNU/Linux in theory, in fact, in reality, in history, in everywhere except your head. > Hence my second thread, about comparing apples with apples. Actually > when you posed the question in your prior post I thought we were in > that newer thread. If you want to start a second thread the do so. Regards. |