Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: Little Charlie on 27 Mar 2010 19:34 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:21:59 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message >news:hokigr$88u$03$1(a)news.t-online.com... >> FromTheRafters wrote: > >[...] > >>>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" >>>> idiotic claims? In fact, it is a quite damning >>>> assessment of windows "capabilities" to get >>>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used >>> >>> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were >>> probably on Unix systems >> >> Hilarious > >Windows wasn't even mentioned, although Unix was (among others). > >>>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware... >>> >>> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group >>> and >>> talking about *viruses*. >> >> Malware encompasses viruses, too > >When you say *viruses*, you should be talking about viruses. Saying that >they require an insecure environment in order to exist is >misinformation. > >> ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more >> than >> idiotic bullshit noted > >It should also be noted that I provided information (and an >authoritative link), and you did nothing but disagree and call me names. > >>>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing >> >> Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted > >I did, I told you that they start executing when their host program is >invoked. Much like a trojan executes when you invoke *it*. > >>>> and how it attaches >>>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing >>> >>> Attaches itself to some vector?? >>> >>> Sheesh! >> >> Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives >> the >> next boot? > >Ahhh - a multiple choice question. > >I choose to address the *virus*, since that is the one kind of malware >that proves your view wrong. > >A virus can be at rest. Most other malware wants to remain active (and >wants its start method to survive a reboot) so it can steal your >computing power and use it for the perpetrators own tasks. A virus can >exist quite happily without being resident all of the time. It runs when >it runs. > >> It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in >> the >> filesystem, whatever) to be present then > >Yes. It may modify a program (or the environment) so that a program (or >programs) *hosts* the virus. The program (now considered a virus itself, >as it is "infected" now) can be stored as a file on the filesystem. > >>> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus >>> as >>> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your >>> chances >>> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds >>> with one stone. >> >> Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject >> >> All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense > >Well, I guess we're done here...I can only hope somebody *else* has >learned something from my posts. > Oh YES indeed!! I had been reluctant to switch to Ubuntu BUT now since I realize all my 'naked' friends have already switched then YIPPEEE!!! I'm throwing the last few bits of clothing out the window as I am booting Ubuntu 10 Beta 1 CD right now!! Free at free at last Thank you to Ubuntu..I am FREE at last !! Seriously I took a good and fair look at Ubuntu back at v8 or 9 and the tuffy for me was a printer driver for a very common and current Lexmark all-in-one..x2500 IIRC . I don't need those pitfalls and those that did reply nonchalantly told me just find the source code and compile it yourself...yeah I could learn to do that but f--k what a hassle..so I burned Ubuntu 10 the other day and might see if the driver situation has improved... Little Charlie's Blues Pages http://www.soundclick.com/LittleCharlie
From: spike1 on 28 Mar 2010 05:17 And verily, didst Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> hastily babble thusly: > There you go changing the specifications to your question again. He does that when he starts getting answers he doesn't like. It was the same with "Who REALLY does serious work on a linux computer?" (note.... he reposted that question DOZENS of times, rejecting every single answer given). When people pointed out that linux ran most of the worldwideweb and in fact, a heck of a lot of the rest of the internet, he rejected that saying he meant only desktop. When people said disney/pixar and other high end animation houses used linux for their number crunching and graphical work, he rejected that until every suggestion had been rejected and serious work was redefined as "using microsoft office". He's doing the same with his "naked linux computer". What does that mean? Linux comes with a fully functional firewall built into the very kernel, so that means it's already many steps ahead of windows, network security-wise. Will he next say that all firewalls have to be configured to be fully open on linux to make the comparison fair? -- | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and | | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" | | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
From: RayLopez99 on 28 Mar 2010 14:06 On Mar 28, 11:17 am, spi...(a)freenet.co.uk wrote: > > He's doing the same with his "naked linux computer". What does that mean? > Linux comes with a fully functional firewall built into the very kernel, so > that means it's already many steps ahead of windows, network security-wise. Well that's what I meant; Linux without TP s/w. So quit putting words into my mouth. Make the comparison now: are they tied or not? And go to school. RL
From: Leythos on 28 Mar 2010 14:14
In article <97b01bbf-4d4f-44e7-9f18-e58954e5f9d3 @k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, raylopez88(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 28, 11:17 am, spi...(a)freenet.co.uk wrote: > > > > He's doing the same with his "naked linux computer". What does that mean? > > Linux comes with a fully functional firewall built into the very kernel, so > > that means it's already many steps ahead of windows, network security-wise. > > Well that's what I meant; Linux without TP s/w. So quit putting words > into my mouth. Make the comparison now: are they tied or not? Why would you want to compare a NON-TYPICAL install of Linux to one of a secured install of Windows? Every distro, major, comes with inbound connections blocked for worsktations, the same is not true for all versions of Windows XP.... -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |