Re: Unix NOT secure against Viruses on home PCs

From: Daniel Mewes (danielmewes_at_web.de)
Date: 10/02/04

  • Next message: Daniel Mewes: "Re: Unix NOT secure against Viruses on home PCs" 
    Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:01:07 +0200

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    NeoSadist wrote:

    > Daniel Mewes wrote:
    >> No, it seems that you did not reed the attached code. Once the virus
    >> infected a source tree's configure file and the user passes this file on
    >> (and actually viruses spreaded many years only because users exchanged
    >> binary programs)
    >
    > That's a stupid generalization. Viruses didn't spread only because they
    > were exchanging binary files in contrast to source code, so get over it.
    > If that was true, watch out! Slackware is distributed in binary format!
    > No, seriously, did you read all lines of source code for all programs you
    > installed? If not, who are you to think source is better if you don't
    > take "advantage" of it?
    >
    > Bottom line, that was a cheap generalization, and I hope that's not what
    > you meant.

    No, it wasn't. I did not want to say anything against binary distribution of
    software. What I wanted to say is that viruses do not need email or
    something like that to spread because in the old days of M$-DOS there has
    been viruses, too. So I thought of ("source-packaged-software" ==
    binary-packaged-software) for this.

    Regards,
    Daniel Mewes
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFBXtDH4sfQ99ygo6IRAkuRAJ9NfxGQWlCYGDy1fAT9xqYrFAqnogCfbI3u
    MUKqn/pBiBrS5iAeuxhFOXU=
    =cdK2
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  • Next message: Daniel Mewes: "Re: Unix NOT secure against Viruses on home PCs"
    • Quantcast