Computer Virus?
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
kmguru
Staff member
Hi rde:
Dont be so hahaha. If Linux gets the critical mass and becomes popular, it will have viruses too. Because you are so few no body young ones dont bother you.
To make any OS immune to virus, the OS has to be more intelligent. No command should be able to wipe out your hard drive unless you give it blood from your finger. Such kernel protection just not exist today.
So, like Chagur siad....wait...your time is coming....OR you can wait for my new OS in 5 years.
Dont be so hahaha. If Linux gets the critical mass and becomes popular, it will have viruses too. Because you are so few no body young ones dont bother you.
To make any OS immune to virus, the OS has to be more intelligent. No command should be able to wipe out your hard drive unless you give it blood from your finger. Such kernel protection just not exist today.
So, like Chagur siad....wait...your time is coming....OR you can wait for my new OS in 5 years.
kmguru
Staff member
NEWS just received
Code Red worm actually long lost fifth horseman of the apocalypse: Computer security experts, the federal government and industry officials have scheduled a press conference this afternoon in Washington to talk about a more malignant version of the Code Red worm that they believe could begin spreading Tuesday evening. A strongly worded statement from the Cert Coordination Center explains what may be in store for us if we fail to take the necessary precautions. "On July 19, 2001, the Code Red worm infected more than 250,000 systems in just 9 hours. The worm scans the Internet, identifies vulnerable systems, and infects these systems by installing itself. Each newly installed worm joins all the others, causing the rate of scanning to grow rapidly. This uncontrolled growth in scanning directly decreases the speed of the Internet and can cause sporadic but widespread outages among all types of systems. Code Red is likely to start spreading again on July 31, 2001, 8:00 PM EDT and has mutated so that it may be even more dangerous. This spread has the potential to disrupt business and personal use of the Internet for applications such as electronic commerce, email, and entertainment." A sobering warning, but one that's easily heeded. The flaw in Microsoft's Internet Information Services software that Code Red exploits is quickly remedied with a simple patch.
Code Red worm actually long lost fifth horseman of the apocalypse: Computer security experts, the federal government and industry officials have scheduled a press conference this afternoon in Washington to talk about a more malignant version of the Code Red worm that they believe could begin spreading Tuesday evening. A strongly worded statement from the Cert Coordination Center explains what may be in store for us if we fail to take the necessary precautions. "On July 19, 2001, the Code Red worm infected more than 250,000 systems in just 9 hours. The worm scans the Internet, identifies vulnerable systems, and infects these systems by installing itself. Each newly installed worm joins all the others, causing the rate of scanning to grow rapidly. This uncontrolled growth in scanning directly decreases the speed of the Internet and can cause sporadic but widespread outages among all types of systems. Code Red is likely to start spreading again on July 31, 2001, 8:00 PM EDT and has mutated so that it may be even more dangerous. This spread has the potential to disrupt business and personal use of the Internet for applications such as electronic commerce, email, and entertainment." A sobering warning, but one that's easily heeded. The flaw in Microsoft's Internet Information Services software that Code Red exploits is quickly remedied with a simple patch.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20719.html
As for linux and viriiuses: there's no doubt that viruses will become more prevalent as the OS grows in popularity. And it will succumb; not because of any flaws inherent in the OS, but because it'll be used by complete fucking muppets. Today, a trained monkey could get an MCSE and job as NT administrator; as usability tools become more popular, it'll become easier for arseholes to do things they shouldn't.
However, it'll never be as insecure as windows until we see Outlook for Linux. If you don't have root - or run stuff as root - then the damage you can do is minimalised. It's only when the muppets start running stuff suid 'to make life easier' that the problems will come. And, like the (rare) clued-in windows user, I'll have relatively few problems. I know what I shouldn't run, I know how to block stuff, and I know how to differentiate between genuine porn that's been sent to me legitimately and fake porn that's just viral.
kmguru
Staff member
Hi rde:
I have a Linux question. If your Linux computer is on a network and your sys admin has the root privilage to your computer as most do, should not it be easier for a virus to infect yours through the sys admin, even though it may not do major damage to the sys admin computer?
I have a Linux question. If your Linux computer is on a network and your sys admin has the root privilage to your computer as most do, should not it be easier for a virus to infect yours through the sys admin, even though it may not do major damage to the sys admin computer?
Depends on the sysadmin (which, here, is me BTW). Remember: just because you've root doesn't mean you're going to use it all the time. Anyone who as root on a box can do anything, but it doesn't mean they're necessarily going to.
The way I work is that I give myself an account on the users' machines, and if I can get away with it, I'll just use that. I only use root when I need to do something fundamental, and I only use root for as long as necessary. Could I fuck over the users' machines? Of course. But it'd be difficult for me to do it unintentionally. If my box was r00ted and I used it to log into another machine, then both machines would be compromised. So I reckon it'd be neither easier nor harder to compromise a box if it were another users.
Did that make sense? I'm not sure I entirely understood the question.
As far as the Linux OS there is the Ramen Worm. Discovered Jan. 17, 2001. For more info go to:
http://service1.symantec.com/sarc/sarc.nsf/html/Linux.Ramen.Worm.html
http://service1.symantec.com/sarc/sarc.nsf/html/Linux.Ramen.Worm.html
Re: Hey, Red Hats ...
Within hours of ramen becoming known, fixes were available for anyone who wanted them. Microsoft, on the other hand, have frequently sat on known bugs^H^H^H^Hissues for months, leaving systems vulnerable while they try to make sure their fix doesn't break previous patches. Hands up everyone who knows an NT administrator who found something broke when he installed a 'service pack'?
If you administer an NT box, there's only one source for fixes; Microsoft. If they couldn't be arsed, or if they're slow, you're fucked. You may be the best programmer in the world, but that's no use whatsoever if you don't have access to the source code.
Of course, if you're that shit-hot a programmer, you're unlikely to be administering an NT box in teh first place.
I used to work in a cyber cafe. One day I had to show an MCSE how to paste the 'MCSE' logo into a word document. Muppets like this have no business running critical systems, but Microsoft is happy to certify them.
Is Red Hat 6.2 vulnerable? Yeah. If you take the MS approach and click on 'server install' and sit back, secure in the knowledge that your work is done. Anyone even slightly clueful will disable all unnecessary services, download all updates and subscribe to bugtraq to ensure their box is at least nominally secure.
In summary:
Linux is more secure than Windows because
1. It's open source. If you encounter a problem, you can fix it, or find at patch written by someone who knows than you. You don't have to adopt the 'wait and pray' attitude of NT admins.
2. Linux won't let you do stupid things with normal accounts. Windows is a single-user operating system with a few kludges to allow individual logins. If your mom clicked on a batch file containing the line "deltree c:\", you can kiss a significant chunk of your hard disk goodbye. If your mom (somehow) accidentally typed "rm -rf /" on a linux box, she'd be told to piss off. Assuming you haven't given your mom root (ew!).
3. This may change as evil corporations port their crap to linux, but for the moment there are no mail programs that'll let you fuck your system in such a thorough way as Outlook manages now. Will we see programs attempt to circumvent safeguards in the interest of 'usability' (AKA shitty features you don't want, but make the product look more like it's value for money?) Of course. But it'll be a lot harder to write a truly OS-killing utility.
I could go on (and on), but I've take up enough of your time.
Before ramen was widely disseminated, I and everyone I know had installed a blocking rule. (This is about to turn into an open source rant, so if you're irritated by teh whole damn argument, look away now...)
Within hours of ramen becoming known, fixes were available for anyone who wanted them. Microsoft, on the other hand, have frequently sat on known bugs^H^H^H^Hissues for months, leaving systems vulnerable while they try to make sure their fix doesn't break previous patches. Hands up everyone who knows an NT administrator who found something broke when he installed a 'service pack'?
If you administer an NT box, there's only one source for fixes; Microsoft. If they couldn't be arsed, or if they're slow, you're fucked. You may be the best programmer in the world, but that's no use whatsoever if you don't have access to the source code.
Of course, if you're that shit-hot a programmer, you're unlikely to be administering an NT box in teh first place.
I used to work in a cyber cafe. One day I had to show an MCSE how to paste the 'MCSE' logo into a word document. Muppets like this have no business running critical systems, but Microsoft is happy to certify them.
Is Red Hat 6.2 vulnerable? Yeah. If you take the MS approach and click on 'server install' and sit back, secure in the knowledge that your work is done. Anyone even slightly clueful will disable all unnecessary services, download all updates and subscribe to bugtraq to ensure their box is at least nominally secure.
In summary:
Linux is more secure than Windows because
1. It's open source. If you encounter a problem, you can fix it, or find at patch written by someone who knows than you. You don't have to adopt the 'wait and pray' attitude of NT admins.
2. Linux won't let you do stupid things with normal accounts. Windows is a single-user operating system with a few kludges to allow individual logins. If your mom clicked on a batch file containing the line "deltree c:\", you can kiss a significant chunk of your hard disk goodbye. If your mom (somehow) accidentally typed "rm -rf /" on a linux box, she'd be told to piss off. Assuming you haven't given your mom root (ew!).
3. This may change as evil corporations port their crap to linux, but for the moment there are no mail programs that'll let you fuck your system in such a thorough way as Outlook manages now. Will we see programs attempt to circumvent safeguards in the interest of 'usability' (AKA shitty features you don't want, but make the product look more like it's value for money?) Of course. But it'll be a lot harder to write a truly OS-killing utility.
I could go on (and on), but I've take up enough of your time.
Spoken like a true Linux devote ... I think it's great.
Reminded me of how I felt about DOS after having to mess with Win 3.1 because of clients being into that 'wonderful' GUI. Mainly because their secretaries thought point and click was so cool.
Still have my old, trusty 486 DX chugging away on DOS with OS2/Warp available when I need some 'bells and whistles'.
But being older and lazier, I picked up a Win2000 laptop to do the online bit. To give you an idea as to the last time I was online: Using a C64 with a 300 baud modem and hooked up with Compuserve before dropping out for about fifteen years.
Thanks for a really decent rundown as to how you feel about Linux ... and why. Sounds like some of the arguments I used when supporting OS2 even though it wasn't open source.
Reminded me of how I felt about DOS after having to mess with Win 3.1 because of clients being into that 'wonderful' GUI. Mainly because their secretaries thought point and click was so cool.
Still have my old, trusty 486 DX chugging away on DOS with OS2/Warp available when I need some 'bells and whistles'.
But being older and lazier, I picked up a Win2000 laptop to do the online bit. To give you an idea as to the last time I was online: Using a C64 with a 300 baud modem and hooked up with Compuserve before dropping out for about fifteen years.
Thanks for a really decent rundown as to how you feel about Linux ... and why. Sounds like some of the arguments I used when supporting OS2 even though it wasn't open source.
Heh,Heh,Heh ...for your reading pleasure.
http://antivirus.about.com/gi/dynam...om/scmagazine/sc-online/2000/linux/index.html
...for your reading pleasure.http://antivirus.about.com/gi/dynam...om/scmagazine/sc-online/2000/linux/index.html