Linux not virus/worm/trojan safe anymore?

Post by Heidi
I was always under the impression that Linux users were safe
from Virus/Worms/Trojans yet I just read this in my latest issue
The latest Trojans include: Backdoor.Surdux, Backdoor.Hazzer,
Backdoor.Peeper, Backdoor.IRC.Aladinz.D, and Trojan.Linux.Zab. The first
four affect Windows systems (the last one affects Linux). Be sure to run a
good anti-virus program and update your definition files often (we update
ours daily).
Specifically this: Trojan.Linux.Zab (the last one affects Linux).
Anyone feel free to set me straight. I thought Linux was completely
safe from this sort of thing.

Not really. It's just that in XP an 'activation' check is built into
the system itself! -- to prevent 'piracy'. You're not informed that
this will be done when you buy a new computer these days, and it's a
shabby way to treat customers.

Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you by convincing him/her that you're not
moving the software to a second machine.

"XP is not a virus -- viruses are small efficient programs."
(Sorry, forgot the source of this quote.)

I just said to hell with it, bought a serial modem for under $50,
and made the switch. The Linux CD was included with a Linux Format
magazine ($13). I couldn't possibly be happier, and have already made
all sorts of hardware changes to my system without the holy blessing
of a monopolysoft engineer.

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
Posted via Linux: no activation; no blue screen of death.
Old winmodems make excellent doorstops.

2003-09-24 08:00:40 UTC

Post by m
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you............

Here, let 'em explain the gory details to you in their own words:
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
Posted via Linux: no activation; no blue screen of death.
Old winmodems make excellent doorstops.

2003-09-24 08:28:53 UTC

Post by m
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you............

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp

....a-and, specifically, from that site:

"Can hardware components be changed and upgraded?
Product Activation is able to tolerate a certain degree of change in a
hardware configuration by allowing a current hash value to have a degree
of difference from the hash value that was originally activated. As a
result, users can change their hardware without the product believing it
is on a different PC than the one it was activated on. If the user
completely overhauls the hardware making substantial hardware changes
(even over long periods of time), reactivation may be required. In that
case, users may need to contact to contact a Microsoft customer service
representative by telephone to reactivate."

Linux beginning to look better? As Rick Farlie put it in the title to
his article in the new Computer Shopper magazine this month:
"Computer Vendors Sell the PC but Rent the Operating System.
Think you own the version of Windows XP that came with the expensive
system you just bought? Think again."

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
Posted via Linux: no activation; no blue screen of death.
Old winmodems make excellent doorstops.

2003-09-24 08:51:27 UTC

Post by m
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you............

And here's another telling bit, hidden deep in the page:

"If I reformat my hard disk, is reactivation required?
If the hard disk is reformatted and the software is reinstalled,
reactivation will be required."

Gaaaaaaaaagg!. ...and another bit of nastiness from the page:

"The product does check itself from time to time to see if it is
activated and if it is still on the same PC on which it was originally
activated."

Yes, open source software is beginning to look better and better.

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
Posted via Linux: no activation; no blue screen of death.
Old winmodems make excellent doorstops.

2003-09-24 09:09:49 UTC

Post by m
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you............

Yes, open source software is beginning to look better and better.

Hmmm. Are you having a running conversation with yourself here? :-)

I have upgraded motherboards and hard disks several times. I have
re-installed XP because it broke on me several times. I also re-install it
at least quartarly just to throw out the clutter that accumulates[1]. Each
time I have simply reactivated it. The online reactivation service has not
yet complained. [2][3].

[1] I now have no idea which computer is licenced for which copy of XP, or
2000/98 for that matter. In any case the original computers are long gone
except of course for the notebooks :-) Computer is a slippery subject here,
there are N motherboards, X disks and Y case/power supplies. The
combinations vary from week to week.

[2] May be because I am a developer network customer, but how would they
know that unless it is etched into my MSDN DVDs?

[3] May be because I am in Australia?

Cheers
Richard.

2003-09-24 09:28:44 UTC

Post by rf
Hmmm. Are you having a running conversation with yourself here? :-)

Walking, thanks. But I'm glad you're here. ;)

Prime Services Ltd

2003-09-24 09:09:51 UTC

Not really. It's just that in XP an 'activation' check is built into
the system itself! -- to prevent 'piracy'. You're not informed that
this will be done when you buy a new computer these days, and it's a
shabby way to treat customers.
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you by convincing him/her that you're not
moving the software to a second machine.
"XP is not a virus -- viruses are small efficient programs."
(Sorry, forgot the source of this quote.)
I just said to hell with it, bought a serial modem for under $50,
and made the switch. The Linux CD was included with a Linux Format
magazine ($13). I couldn't possibly be happier, and have already made
all sorts of hardware changes to my system without the holy blessing
of a monopolysoft engineer.

What has all that pro-linux / anti-microshit stuff got to do with Heidi's
original question?

Heidi

2003-09-24 09:16:24 UTC

Charging up on a white horse Prime Services Ltd said:
: What has all that pro-linux / anti-microshit stuff got to do with
: Heidi's original question?

IMO not a damn thing which is why I wasn't reading what
he posted after I read the first one.

--
Heidi
PaidToReads: http://www.paidtoreads.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.page-zone.com/
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/index.php?referrerid=146

2003-09-24 09:17:57 UTC

Post by Heidi

Post by Heidi
good anti-virus program and update your definition files often (we

update

Post by Heidi
ours daily).
Specifically this: Trojan.Linux.Zab (the last one affects Linux).
Anyone feel free to set me straight. I thought Linux was completely
safe from this sort of thing.

Not really. It's just that in XP an 'activation' check is built into
the system itself! -- to prevent 'piracy'. You're not informed that
this will be done when you buy a new computer these days, and it's a
shabby way to treat customers.
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you by convincing him/her that you're not
moving the software to a second machine.
"XP is not a virus -- viruses are small efficient programs."
(Sorry, forgot the source of this quote.)
I just said to hell with it, bought a serial modem for under $50,
and made the switch. The Linux CD was included with a Linux Format
magazine ($13). I couldn't possibly be happier, and have already made
all sorts of hardware changes to my system without the holy blessing
of a monopolysoft engineer.

What has all that pro-linux / anti-microshit stuff got to do with Heidi's
original question?

Her original questions was about trojans. Perhaps our definitions
of what one is differs. If I buy a computer, as I did, without
being informed that there was a program on it that *phones home*,
and if that program can damage my computing experience in any way,
then I seem to be following her topic very well.

--
Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
Posted via Linux: no activation; no blue screen of death.
Old winmodems make excellent doorstops.

Prime Services Ltd

2003-09-24 13:29:48 UTC

Post by Heidi

Post by Heidi
good anti-virus program and update your definition files often (we

update

Post by Heidi
ours daily).
Specifically this: Trojan.Linux.Zab (the last one affects Linux).
Anyone feel free to set me straight. I thought Linux was completely
safe from this sort of thing.

Not really. It's just that in XP an 'activation' check is built into
the system itself! -- to prevent 'piracy'. You're not informed that
this will be done when you buy a new computer these days, and it's a
shabby way to treat customers.
Try to upgrade your motherboard and you have to beg a Monopolysoft
'engineer' to reactivate you by convincing him/her that you're not
moving the software to a second machine.
"XP is not a virus -- viruses are small efficient programs."
(Sorry, forgot the source of this quote.)
I just said to hell with it, bought a serial modem for under $50,
and made the switch. The Linux CD was included with a Linux Format
magazine ($13). I couldn't possibly be happier, and have already made
all sorts of hardware changes to my system without the holy blessing
of a monopolysoft engineer.

What has all that pro-linux / anti-microshit stuff got to do with Heidi's
original question?

I think our definitions are pretty much the same by the sound of
things....Although I thought she was asking about the vulnerability of linux
systems....Oh well....Ho hum....Tiddley dee...etc etc.....

Vassil Stoyanov

2003-09-26 14:02:08 UTC

Post by m
"XP is not a virus -- viruses are small efficient programs."
(Sorry, forgot the source of this quote.)

Very nice quote, and it suits XP just fine. Open source is the future,
problem is MS won't see that any time soon. OMG I just remembered they
even feature a new CD on their site with FAQ and ready to use answer
to questions regarding Linux vs Windows and why MS's products are
better than opens source OS's...MS are *sad*!
I'll post the link to that page when I find it, the laugh in MS's face
is worth the search!

http://www.lonex.com/
Affordable web hosting from http://www.lonex.com/
· Business plan - 400MB Disk space/5GB Transfer-$4.95/mo
· Corporate plan - 600MB Disk space/10GB Transfer-$9.95/mo
+ FREE domain name!

William Tasso

2003-09-24 08:05:58 UTC

Post by Heidi
I was always under the impression that Linux users were safe
from Virus/Worms/Trojans yet I just read this in my latest issue
The latest Trojans include: ...
Specifically this: Trojan.Linux.Zab (the last one affects Linux).
Anyone feel free to set me straight. I thought Linux was completely
safe from this sort of thing.

Think for a minute about Virus/Worms/Trojans etc. what are they?

Briefly, they are (mostly) executables that do something we would rather our
computers didn't do - sometimes self harm. Any computer with an i/o
facility is liable to be attacked regardless of hardware/OS combo.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

Heidi

2003-09-24 09:16:24 UTC

Charging up on a white horse William Tasso said:
: Briefly, they are (mostly) executables that do something we would
: rather our
: computers didn't do - sometimes self harm. Any computer with an i/o
: facility is liable to be attacked regardless of hardware/OS combo.

Ah.. so Linux is not infallible then. Just that Windows gets hit more. :)
Got it now. Thanks William.

--
Heidi
PaidToReads: http://www.paidtoreads.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.page-zone.com/
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/index.php?referrerid=146

Doc O'Leary

2003-09-24 12:22:33 UTC

Post by Heidi
: Briefly, they are (mostly) executables that do something we would
: rather our
: computers didn't do - sometimes self harm. Any computer with an i/o
: facility is liable to be attacked regardless of hardware/OS combo.
Ah.. so Linux is not infallible then. Just that Windows gets hit more. :)
Got it now. Thanks William.

No, you don't. William vastly oversimplified the issue. The problem
with Windows is that often times the harmful code is run
*automatically*. Related is the issue of what can be done locally and
what can be done over a network; Windows simply has too many proprietary
services enabled by default to be safe.

Any system can be social engineered, which is essentially what a trojan
does. Unix, however, has long been a social system and has many
mechanisms in place to protect one idiot user from another. This is
very evident as you look at the details for something like
Trojan.Linux.Zab. It is itself a trojan of a malicious program: it
would only be downloaded and used by someone attempt to exploit another
system. It further requires that it be run as root, meaning no local
hole is exploit. A far cry from the Windows concerns of being owned by
simplying reading email!

David Venn-Brown

2003-09-24 12:44:16 UTC

No, you don't. William vastly oversimplified the issue. The problem
with Windows is that often times the harmful code is run
*automatically*. Related is the issue of what can be done locally and
what can be done over a network; Windows simply has too many proprietary
services enabled by default to be safe.
Any system can be social engineered, which is essentially what a trojan
does. Unix, however, has long been a social system and has many
mechanisms in place to protect one idiot user from another. This is
very evident as you look at the details for something like
Trojan.Linux.Zab. It is itself a trojan of a malicious program: it
would only be downloaded and used by someone attempt to exploit another
system. It further requires that it be run as root, meaning no local
hole is exploit. A far cry from the Windows concerns of being owned by
simplying reading email!

Sure, *nix might have better security aspects, but the main factor that
has caused a plethora of Windows based virii et al as opposed to the few
*nix equivalents is because Windows is a piece of commercial software
written by the big bad Microsoft. It is the most common OS family and is
most widely used amongst corporations and government institutions (South
Korean govt being an exception IIRC).

2000/XP, because they are the central parts of these computer networks,
are the most badly hit. Note that 2000/XP security isn't terribly bad,
and can work well if used properly. Many of the vulnerabilities are
"buffer overruns" which can occur anywhere and are only known because of
the popularity of the OS. The only real problem is the fact that MS
could probably fix some of these problems preemptively if they so
desired. 98/Me are basically user-oriented.

*nix, on the other hand is often seen as the 'good-guy' alternative to
MS software and is used far less widely; for these reasons these
hackers, etc, are less likely to look for vulnerabilities. Also, this
stream of OSs isn't widely known by the general public and so would gain
less attention. For this reason, even though *nix OSs are widely used,
for example, as servers, they are not a target. I'm sure that there are
security issues with Linux that could be found if people were to look
hard enough; to that extent William was absolutely correct. To say that
Linux etc has bulletproof security is naive.

So yes, whilst *nux may have some superiority in terms of security, this
isn't the main reason why there are fewer attacks on it.

Doc O'Leary

2003-09-25 12:21:22 UTC

Post by David Venn-Brown
So yes, whilst *nux may have some superiority in terms of security, this
isn't the main reason why there are fewer attacks on it.

It's not about the number of attacks, it's about the number of
*successes*. From a crackers standpoint, being able to lay claim to an
a successful attack on a Unix system would be major kudos. Windows
exploits are script kiddie material; so common that you'd get laughed at
as if you tried to brag about, essentially, taking candy from a baby.

Stop being a Microsoft apologist. Windows sucks. It's digusting that
people have given and *continue* to give them and their illegal monopoly
billions of dollars.

David Venn-Brown

2003-09-26 03:34:35 UTC

Post by David Venn-Brown
So yes, whilst *nux may have some superiority in terms of security, this
isn't the main reason why there are fewer attacks on it.

It's not about the number of attacks, it's about the number of
*successes*. From a crackers standpoint, being able to lay claim to an
a successful attack on a Unix system would be major kudos. Windows
exploits are script kiddie material; so common that you'd get laughed at
as if you tried to brag about, essentially, taking candy from a baby.
Stop being a Microsoft apologist. Windows sucks. It's digusting that
people have given and *continue* to give them and their illegal monopoly
billions of dollars.

My God you're a faggot. Yes that's right, you are. Now fuck off and die
you loser.

Matt Probert

2003-09-24 12:51:52 UTC

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:22:33 -0500 Doc O'Leary

No, you don't. William vastly oversimplified the issue. The problem
with Windows is that often times the harmful code is run
*automatically*. Related is the issue of what can be done locally and
what can be done over a network; Windows simply has too many proprietary
services enabled by default to be safe.
Any system can be social engineered, which is essentially what a trojan
does. Unix, however, has long been a social system and has many
mechanisms in place to protect one idiot user from another. This is
very evident as you look at the details for something like
Trojan.Linux.Zab. It is itself a trojan of a malicious program: it
would only be downloaded and used by someone attempt to exploit another
system. It further requires that it be run as root, meaning no local
hole is exploit. A far cry from the Windows concerns of being owned by
simplying reading email!

May I ?

I see the relative security of Linux compared to Windows to stem from
the nature of the people using the systems.

Traditionally, and this is fast changing, Linux users were highly
skilled technicians who recompiled the kernel to suit their own
hardware and networking configuration. These experts were by nature
very aware of security issues. Compare them with the traditional
Windows user who bought it with the PC and had no knowledge of
networking, let-alone security, and you can see how they are far more
vulnerable.

The matter was not helped by Windows insistence on dumbing-down
software, integrating the operating system with the applications that
ran under (over?) it, which in turn opened a door for virus writers to
produce malicious auto-activating software which could be emailed and
which made use of the Microsoft prepared path from email client to
operating system, word processor, spreadsheet, address book etc.

As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Doc O'Leary

2003-09-25 12:25:29 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong. Mac OS X easily has a larger user base than Linux, one
that is less technically adept, and arguably the most "user friendly"
interface out there. It also happens to be one of the most secure Unix
distributions available. Windows is as vulnerable as it is because of
incompetence by Microsoft employees, not because of ubiquity. Being
widespread simply makes attacks more devistating, not more likely.

Matt Probert

2003-09-25 16:31:39 UTC

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Post by Doc O'Leary
Mac OS X easily has a larger user base than Linux, one
that is less technically adept, and arguably the most "user friendly"
interface out there. It also happens to be one of the most secure Unix
distributions available. Windows is as vulnerable as it is because of
incompetence by Microsoft employees, not because of ubiquity. Being
widespread simply makes attacks more devistating, not more likely.

Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

Please don't try to compare apples with pears (sic).

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

William Tasso

2003-09-25 16:57:21 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
...
don't try to compare apples with pears (sic).

good advice. I just checked with the resident wenches at Tasso Hall: they
all advise against using a personal computer as an aid to personal hygene.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

Doc O'Leary

2003-09-26 14:18:20 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Koppel, Ted
Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted.
In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It
is a howling reproach.

Post by Matt Probert
Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

What are you saying are the significant technical differences between
Linux and Darwin, the open source core of Mac OS X? Your argument was
that making a Unix "friendly" would make it just as vulnerable as
Windows. Mac OS X is an easy counter example to that.

Matt Probert

2003-09-26 17:05:49 UTC

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:18:20 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Koppel, Ted
Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted.
In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It
is a howling reproach.

Post by Matt Probert
Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

No I said about the current path that Linux releases are following is
making them more susceptible or vulnerable to virus attacks for
various complex reasons, which I cited. No programmers use Apple Macs
anyway, only graphic artists and publishers.

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Karim

2003-09-26 17:30:59 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:18:20 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Koppel, Ted
Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted.
In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It
is a howling reproach.

Post by Matt Probert
Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

One thing about Linux that software companies are increasingly complaining
about is the different distributions available, the different versions of
each distro, the different libraries included in each, the differemt
placement of configuration files... etc. This means they have to test under
all these conditions. That's why you will see companies that certify their
product for a certain distro and version. Like Oracle certifying their
database for Redhat Enterprise only. Meaning if you have Mandrake, SUSE or
any non Redhat distro, they will not provide support. Well.. that's just
dandy. It must be frustrating that a Linux software will not work on your
version of Linux because it's not supported.

--
Karim
Recommended host: http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Affordable hosting since
1998

Bill Logan

2003-09-27 00:13:03 UTC

Post by Karim

Post by Matt Probert
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:18:20 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Koppel, Ted
Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted.
In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It
is a howling reproach.

Post by Matt Probert
Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

That is the fault of the other program developers, not linux.
Most linux programs, and this is one of the advantages of linux, and unix,
is that unlike windows, they do not need to always 'know' where certain
things are. the OS takes care of that.
I will give you an example. The commonly used phpinfo file that gives a
printout of the system info like system variables, installed packages, paths
and file locations does its job regardless where you place it. You can put
it in any accessable directory you like and it will find and report on
everything correctly. The different versions of each distro have nothing to
do with it. It is the fault of the software people who still insist on
trying to do things the way windows does. They end up producing software
that will only work EG when a particular required file is in the etc dir
when other distros put it in the bin dir. If they built software, as so many
others have, such as sun in staroffice, that work reguardless of file
location then maybe, just maybe they could escape the represive MS mold and
become really creative.

Mark Nobles

2003-09-26 20:30:09 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
No programmers use Apple Macs
anyway, only graphic artists and publishers.
Matt

I can't believe you would say something as ignorant as that. There are
a lot of people who are still that far behind the times, but I never
would have imagined you to be one of them.

You would probably be shocked at the number of unix system
administrators who are using Macs, especially laptops, to maintain
their networks.

Mark

--
Now, let's hear from Luke and John on the subject.

Charles Sweeney

2003-09-26 23:07:21 UTC

Post by Mark Nobles

Post by Matt Probert
No programmers use Apple Macs
anyway, only graphic artists and publishers.
Matt

I can't believe you would say something as ignorant as that. There are
a lot of people who are still that far behind the times, but I never
would have imagined you to be one of them.
You would probably be shocked at the number of unix system
administrators who are using Macs, especially laptops, to maintain
their networks.

From what I can gather, Matt is correct. Macs are the first choice for
publishers. Sure other people use them too, but you would have to be blind
not to see how they are mainly used.

--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com

Karim

2003-09-26 22:36:43 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:18:20 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:25:29 -0500 Doc O'Leary

Post by Matt Probert
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

You are wrong.

Don't beat about the bush, come out with you mean!

Koppel, Ted
Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted.
In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It
is a howling reproach.

Post by Matt Probert
Different system. We are talking about open-source Linux, not Mac OS
X.

If you go to one of those white Apple stores, you'll notice crowds from all
ages buying mac stuff.

--
Karim
Recommended host: http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Affordable hosting since
1998

Bill Logan

2003-09-26 19:01:47 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:22:33 -0500 Doc O'Leary

No, you don't. William vastly oversimplified the issue. The problem
with Windows is that often times the harmful code is run
*automatically*. Related is the issue of what can be done locally and
what can be done over a network; Windows simply has too many proprietary
services enabled by default to be safe.
Any system can be social engineered, which is essentially what a trojan
does. Unix, however, has long been a social system and has many
mechanisms in place to protect one idiot user from another. This is
very evident as you look at the details for something like
Trojan.Linux.Zab. It is itself a trojan of a malicious program: it
would only be downloaded and used by someone attempt to exploit another
system. It further requires that it be run as root, meaning no local
hole is exploit. A far cry from the Windows concerns of being owned by
simplying reading email!

May I ?
I see the relative security of Linux compared to Windows to stem from
the nature of the people using the systems.
Traditionally, and this is fast changing, Linux users were highly
skilled technicians who recompiled the kernel to suit their own
hardware and networking configuration. These experts were by nature
very aware of security issues. Compare them with the traditional
Windows user who bought it with the PC and had no knowledge of
networking, let-alone security, and you can see how they are far more
vulnerable.
The matter was not helped by Windows insistence on dumbing-down
software, integrating the operating system with the applications that
ran under (over?) it, which in turn opened a door for virus writers to
produce malicious auto-activating software which could be emailed and
which made use of the Microsoft prepared path from email client to
operating system, word processor, spreadsheet, address book etc.
As Linux releases become more "user friendly" or if you prefer,
"dumb", so too shall it become more easy to break into, although the
traditional expert user will still be safe.

That logic may not apply.
As linux does become more user friendly it will likely stretch the distance
between user and root
IE it may become less likely that the user will know about, let alone try to
get into what root does. And that is where the security primarily lies. If
the user cannot, or will not become root then things like changing
permissions - except on files created by or 'owned' by the user - will not
be permitted. Thus a virus or trojan will also not be able to run - do
anything unless it also has the correct permissions.

My thinking is that the more user friendly linux becomes and the less OS
knowlegable the user becomes the less likely a sucessful attack due to the
fact that the user is less likely to be able to open the system by setting
favourable (to the invader) permissions. (IMHO?:-))

Matt Probert

2003-09-27 07:41:29 UTC

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:01:47 +1200 "Bill Logan" <***@what.com> broke
off from drinking a cup of tea at CLEAR Net New Zealand

Post by Bill Logan
My thinking is that the more user friendly linux becomes and the less OS
knowlegable the user becomes the less likely a sucessful attack due to the
fact that the user is less likely to be able to open the system by setting
favourable (to the invader) permissions. (IMHO?:-))

Plausible.

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

David Venn-Brown

2003-09-27 07:55:17 UTC

Post by Matt Probert
off from drinking a cup of tea at CLEAR Net New Zealand

Plausible.
Matt

On the other hand, the less knowledgable the user becomes:
1. They have less idea of what they're fiddling with, and so are more
likely to make mistakes by accident.
2. If they get programs to make the changes easier to implement (I don't
know if they exist or ever will) they have less control over what
happens and are in even deeper trouble if something does go wrong.

Having said that, Bill's logic is also correct, and I think that overall
Linux has a better security model than Windows.

Doc O'Leary need not reply.

Bill Logan

2003-09-27 10:05:39 UTC

Post by David Venn-Brown

Post by Matt Probert
off from drinking a cup of tea at CLEAR Net New Zealand

Plausible.
Matt

1. They have less idea of what they're fiddling with, and so are more
likely to make mistakes by accident.

Fortunately, most distros these days require the installer to set up a user
who is not root to log on for everyday use. When root access is requested
the user is reminded of the dangers and asked to confirm. On that basis I
would suspect any fiddling done might be by design rather than by accident.
As long as the user does not become root the only danger is to the users
files.

Post by David Venn-Brown
2. If they get programs to make the changes easier to implement (I don't
know if they exist or ever will) they have less control over what
happens and are in even deeper trouble if something does go wrong.

To some extent that already happens, in Mandrake for example you have
packages like hard drake that make system config relatively easy - even for
a novice. On the plus side, you do have to su in order to get access and
there are multiple warnings. Even after that, when you make changes there
are at least two confirmations required and sometimes three, for any change.
On top of that the damn machine presents an advisory of the consequences of
the action if done incorrectly. In some critical areas the program will
refuse to allow you to make a change if it is contrary to the safety /
security of the system. Linux is approaching a growth in self defence :-)

Bill Logan

2003-09-24 18:30:52 UTC

It is really quite simple
Any *.nix can be absolutely safe from and virus, trojan or other attack.
When they are attacked it will be the fault of the user, not the system

In simple terms, all *.nix files and programmes are permission based. E.G.
if a trojan, (an executable) were to find its way on to a *.nix machine it
would need permissions from that machine before it could execute. If execute
permissions are required to be 'owner' 'group' where owner is me and group
is mine the trojan cannot possibly have those permissions and there fore
cannot possibly run

The only way an executable could run in those circumstances would be if
permissions required to run on a particular machine were set in a totally
insecure way.

A trojan or virus cannot write to a file if the trojan or virus does not
have permission.
To be really effective a trojan or virus would need to know the owner name
and password for every single machine attacked - what are the odds?

The file structure on a *..nix machine also means that a virus or trojan or
whatever that needs a prg or dll or lib on the local machine to do its work
may not be able to find it.

Unlike windows where all prg etns like dlls ect are in a specific sub dir -
windows/system eg

Also on windows permissions are more often based on simple read write
unrestricted by who is using the machine - if they are in there they can use
it.

I use both linux and windows go online with both.
In windows I use a firewall and strongly use anti-virus and anti spam
remedys
I am regularly having to clean the system due to attacks
Last week I had to rebuild the win machine due to a virus that snuck in.

In linux I use a firewall but no anti-virus tatics.
In more than 9 years I have had no problems on the linux machine - yes,
viruses have snuck in, (identified because they did not belong and their
permissions indicated alien) but they have never caused, or been able to
cause, any problems.

Heidi

2003-09-24 21:01:24 UTC

Charging up on a white horse Bill Logan said:
: I use both linux and windows go online with both.
: In windows I use a firewall and strongly use anti-virus and anti spam
: remedys
: I am regularly having to clean the system due to attacks
: Last week I had to rebuild the win machine due to a virus that snuck
: in.

Thank you for that reply Bill. I understand much better now.
Incidentally after the first time I got a virus/worm/trojan when I
first got online I have not had one since.

I, somewhat aggressively, use anti-spam, virus and firewall protection.
It has been four or five years since with no problems. :)

--
Heidi
PaidToReads: http://www.paidtoreads.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.page-zone.com/
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/index.php?referrerid=146

Charles Sweeney

2003-09-24 20:29:58 UTC

Post by Heidi
I was always under the impression that Linux users were safe
from Virus/Worms/Trojans yet I just read this in my latest issue

Any system is vulnerable. The only reason Windows gets hit more often, is
because more people use it.

--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com

Heidi

2003-09-24 21:01:24 UTC

Charging up on a white horse Charles Sweeney said:
: Any system is vulnerable. The only reason Windows gets hit more
: often, is because more people use it.

Yes that makes total sense. Well just one more good reason to go
against the MS monopoly? *grin*

--
Heidi
PaidToReads: http://www.paidtoreads.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.page-zone.com/
http://www.webmaster-talk.com/index.php?referrerid=146

Bill Logan

2003-09-24 21:57:53 UTC