Re: Windows vulnerability vs Linux vulnerability

phn_at_icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
Date: 05/11/04 

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

In comp.security.misc Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu writes:

>>In comp.security.misc Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> In article <c7ochg$26qg$1@nyheter.ipsec.se>, phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
>>> says...
>>>> In comp.security.misc Leythos <void@nowhere.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:

>>> http://www.f-prot.com/currentversions.html

>>Looking further shows up :
>>http://www.f-prot.com/virusinfo/unix.htm

>>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 http://librenix.com/?inode=21

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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Bugbear" virus in Linux?
    ... > the probability of virus trasmission, ... If the probability increases, that means it must be greater than 0; ... > A virus which does not spread is not a virus. ... Linux virus is impossible to be successful in the sense of continuing to ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: complete and total virus/security protection
    ... > I am trying to come up with a definition for linux machines for complete ... > virus protection. ... linux workstations do not did ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: Mac will get more viruses then Windows in 2006
    ... Tim Smith wrote: ... The point of a virus is to *spread* and that is hard if there are very few ... so there are enough machines now. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Windows vulnerability vs Linux vulnerability
    ... linux-virus" is at closer inspection not a virus that can spread ... to spread by movong executables between machines. ... this is one aspect where windows is superior to Linux, ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Windows vulnerability vs Linux vulnerability
    ... linux-virus" is at closer inspection not a virus that can spread ... to spread by movong executables between machines. ... this is one aspect where windows is superior to Linux, ...
    (alt.computer.security)