Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus,linux malware

[FromTheRafters]

[snipped more attempts to change the parameters]

 

[FromTheRafters]

7 wrote:
Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.

JeffM wrote:
...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.

FromTheRafters wrote:
http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux

Yawn.
That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.

So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
for' and I provided you with many.

Back-peddle all you want.

[Snipped attempts to change the parameters]

LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is.....

I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what
was asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow
highlighted portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.

....don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more
about infections and operating systems than he does.

 

[Bjørn Steensrud]

[snipped more attempts to change the parameters]

Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
ESET?
Those I checked were trojan attacks, it was explained how they attacked
OS/X, but not a word about how they could get into Linux except by social
engineering. AV systems do not protect against stupidity.

 

[FromTheRafters]

On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
JeffM wrote:
7 wrote:
Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.

JeffM wrote:
...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.

FromTheRafters wrote:
http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux

Yawn.
That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.

So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
for' and I provided you with many.

Back-peddle all you want.

[Snipped attempts to change the parameters]

LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is.....

I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what was
asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow highlighted
portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.

...don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more about
infections and operating systems than he does.

JeffM is COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

 

[FromTheRafters]

That "Hadron" is an idiot and a liar?

And that's putting it mildly.

Evidently, even lying idiots can be correct.

 

[Dustin]

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few. The most
annoying to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus.
We had a worm that got into a few machines - the source was an
employee who brought in their laptop to download a windows service
pack that blocked said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at
home. Needless to say that employee got a keelhauling for
connecting an outside machine to the company network.

That indicates improper security measures being used. [g]. It's no
biggie, long time and I'm sure you've implemented stricter file sharing
since then.

PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.

I didn't say the PLC was junk, just the software on them that I have to
work with most of the time was. [g]. A PLC is a fine control system.
Have you seen Hubbel's latest offerings?

However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the
user interface is normally on a PC. Mess up them, and you've messed
up the plant.

I know.

No, Linux has better security through better design and
implementation. (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like
BSD, Solaris, etc.) Lower desktop market penetration is an extra
bonus that reduces the threats even more.

And in order to attract the userbase linux seems to be aiming for, they
will have to dumb it down some. Lax some of that inherent security.
When they do, Linux will have the same targets at it as windows does
today.

Linux isn't targetted less because the malware authors think it's
secure, far from that, it's just not viable if you want to make money.

 

[Dustin]

David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:


Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout
the years, isn't it?

I'm not pushing you any bullshit. I'm just giving you my opinion as
that as a former vxer. I targetted windows systems because they were
lots more of them. Not because I thought linux was immune.

Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the
globe, from its roots with a telephony provider.

Yea. I don't need an education in my own past, thanks tho.

Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots
with "Traf-O-Data".

NT wasn't originally intended for end users.

 

[Dustin]

Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't
get a damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a
total hypocrite.

Hardly.

 

[Dustin]

Hahaha! Good one Big Steel. That's right, Dustin is a clown who
has written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of

I'm the ehh, clown who handed you your ass in alt.comp.virus you mean. ;p

 

[Dustin]

That's so true Dustin. Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
share.

Calling me a clown and ragging on me, then having to accept what I said
must irritate you. eh? Ass ****.

BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
(administrator rights).

You *don't* know all kinds of things, pissant.

As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when,
as you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD
that was a virus--no fault then of Windows.

Yep. Something I've had the skills to write for years, did write, retired
from. Still, I'll always know more than you.

 

[Dustin]

Android suffers from trojans in binaries distributed from dodgey
3rd party app stores in China. It's not quite the same thing as what
has plagued Windows and DOS since the dawn of time.

Same concept. Social engineering, same result; same tools used even.
Nothings changed.

Although there is the occasional PC game or app that comes with
conveniently infected installation disks.

LOL.

 

[Dustin]

You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.

So where's all the malware?

Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
target it.

 

[Snit]

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:

Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.


Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
target it.

Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending about the
same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or at least
pretty close.

The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.

 

[Snit]

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
....

 

[Snit]

Big Steel stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/2/11 4:38 PM:

LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
money.

Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.

I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
easy a Windows user could do it.

That's kind of the point.

Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
as root.

 

[Snit]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.

I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
easy a Windows user could do it.

That's kind of the point.

Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
as root.

Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.

When Ubuntu 11.10 comes out maybe I will make a video of how to install
it... might help some who feel scared of doing so see how easy it is.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:

Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending about the
same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or at least
pretty close.

The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.

LOL

It is not about the amount of "money" that the comparative OS userbases
have available to be stolen, it is about the amount of "computing power"
that can be stolen from them. It is the computing power that is then
used to make the money.

It is a common trait of all types of malware, it's not only about what
else they do, but about them stealing your computing power to do it.

 

[FromTheRafters]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:

Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:


I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
OS makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a
solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
safe. But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
unsafe.

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.

I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
easy a Windows user could do it.

That's kind of the point.

Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
as root.

Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.

That's good, but you *should* be able to say "all" here instead of just
"most".

When Ubuntu 11.10 comes out maybe I will make a video of how to install
it... might help some who feel scared of doing so see how easy it is.

You would just be contributing to the problem of decreasing the overall
IQ of the Linux userbase. Developers should strive to make things *more*
difficult so as to weed the garden so to speak.

 

[Snit]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/2/11 5:54 PM:

LOL

It is not about the amount of "money" that the comparative OS userbases
have available to be stolen, it is about the amount of "computing power"
that can be stolen from them. It is the computing power that is then
used to make the money.

Sometimes that... sometimes money. But reasonable response.