Re: Windows vulnerability vs Linux vulnerability
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.security.misc Bernd Felsche <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
>>In comp.security.misc Leythos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> In comp.security.misc Leythos <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> > That's complete BS - just because you don't think you have a
>>>> > need for it doesn't mean that you don't. That's like the
>>>> > security through obscurity practice. It will be funny when
>>>> > your machine goes down once they start targeting the Linux
>>>> > systems as much as they do the Windows systems.
>>>> Talking about BS seems to be the last resourt when no arguments exists.
>>>> Ok, you claim that Linux needs Virusscanner. Then you must know at least
>>>> one virus that is a threat ti a linux system ? Which one ?
>>> Don't take my word for it - there are 404 current virus's on record for
>>> Linux / Unix systems listed by F-PROT:
>>Looking further shows up :
>>with a list of 2 (two) worms attacking certain versions of Apache.
>>( Unix/Scalper UNIX/Slapper )
>>Still no Linux-virus in sight. It seems more and more likley that :
>>- there is no such thing as a 'Linux virus' and
>>- someone is sending FUD ( and fails )
Nice article ! The reference to "bliss" as 2 "virus, the only known
linux-virus" is at closer inspection not a virus that can spread
between machines, instead it's something that needs a human
to spread by movong executables between machines. That makes it
very much inferior to most Wintendo-eating virii. ( AT least
this is one aspect where windows is superior to Linux, i'll have
to admit that).
Let's hope that FUD about Linux ( and unix) regarding virus and
worms has been shown to be - Fear Uncertenty and Doubt !
-- Peter Håkanson IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside ) Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out, remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.