Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!
From: Rolf Arne Schulze (raskall_at_gmail.com)
Date: 03/29/05
- Previous message: ralph: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- In reply to: OK: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Next in thread: Julia Thorne: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:36 +0200
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:41 +0200, OK wrote:
> Too bad there is no anti-virus on Linux and that 100% of users are
> vulnerable...
What? Do you really mean that clamav, which has stopped 40 viruses on
my linux network of 4 clients in a week, isn't an anti-virus? Help, am
I really that insecure? What about the 672 spam messages spamassassin
has stopped the last week? haven't it stopped them after all?
*sigh* I simply MUST convert to windows on my servers and
clients. I guess it was a bad idea to setup automatic patching and
virus definition update on my linux boxes. Simply a waste of all the
30 minutes it took to set it up.
-- Rolf Arne Schulze Trans-atlantic weightloss challenge: http://tawlc.net/ Min Weblog: http://rolfas.net/
- Previous message: ralph: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- In reply to: OK: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Next in thread: Julia Thorne: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
