Re: Windows vulnerability vs Linux vulnerability
Date: 05/11/04

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:06:57 +0000 (UTC)

In Bernd Felsche <> wrote:
> writes:

>>In Leythos <> wrote:
>>> In article <c7ochg$26qg$>,
>>> says...
>>>> In Leythos <> 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 )

> See

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.