Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!
From: Rick Moen (rick_at_linuxmafia.com)
Date: 04/23/05
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Myths"
- Previous message: Barton L. Phillips: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- In reply to: billwg: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Next in thread: Rebecca: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Reply: Rebecca: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:10:13 -0400
Hey, kiddo. Fix your Followup-Tos. Time to grow up.
In comp.os.linux.security billwg <billwg@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If a "couple of those" are "worms that worked", then it would seem that
> it is not impossible to infect linux with a virus, which was the premise
> of the OP.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus5
Quoting from near the end, after going through literally _all_ of the
"malware" ever produced thus far for Linux (which for reasons cited have
been, uniformly, spectacularly unsuccessful in the wild):
V. In Summary:
There are real threats [link] to Linux security. If you spend time
looking for "Linux viruses" -- which, by and large, can come at your
system only if you GET BEHIND THEM AND PUSH -- you might miss the
real threats and not do something useful like studying your
security profile [link] and other measures [link].
-- Cheers, "There's a sucker born every minute. eBay is the delivery room." Rick Moen -- David Crowe rick@linuxmafia.com
- Next message: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Myths"
- Previous message: Barton L. Phillips: "Re: Sysmask security challenge: useful or not?"
- In reply to: billwg: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Next in thread: Rebecca: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Reply: Rebecca: "Re: Repost: Linux is Secure - HAHA, Maybe not!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]