Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall. - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall. - Linux ; Sinister Midget wrote: > On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed: > >> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as >> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being >> explained to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

  1. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Sinister Midget wrote:
    > On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:
    >
    >> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >> explained to them dozens of times.

    >
    > They need pictures. And glasses.


    I hear Linux must go in that direction if Joe Blow home user is going to
    get on board with Linux. Linux has got to do a better job than what it's
    doing, which is still word of mouth, using Avon and Tupperware parties.


  2. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Cross Posting HO wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> So in my opinion, Linux' security is vastly better than anything Windows
    >> can hope to achieve, both because of its superior design, and its normal
    >> usage pattern -- the latter of which hardly ever involves manually
    >> executing anything, let alone anything from untrusted sources.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Gee, you know security is based upon who is sitting behind the wheel and
    > is doing the driving.


    This is shoving all responsibility for security onto the user's plate -- and
    it's a gross misconception. The actual structure of a computing environment
    is the most important factor in security.

    > That also includes does one know how to implement security measures on an
    > O/S and knowing how to practice safe hex.


    You mean all that well-meant advice such as "install anti-malware", "install
    anti-virus", "install a firewall", "regularly scan your box for
    malware", "don't install non-trusted applications", "don't click untrusted
    links", "don't visit dodgy web sites", "don't even view unexpected or
    untrusted e-mail messages", "don't open unexpected e-mail attachments" and
    more such things? And that failing to observe any one of these rules
    results in a very high probability of immediate malware infection?

    Ghee, doesn't this almost exclusively applies to Windows users? Most of
    which once in a while fail to observe these rules?

    Linux users don't have to know about "implementing security measures" --
    it's all been implemented and set up for them, with a functional privilege
    system, mandatory root and user passwords, and no click==execute mechanisms
    for anything not explicitly installed.
    Linux users don't have to know "how to practice safe hex" -- the OS is very
    uninviting to performing insecure actions. Anything affecting the overall
    system requires root password, downloaded files cannot simply be executed,
    and you explicitly have to install and (mis)configure servers to become
    vulnerable for remote attacks.

    Using Windows in a secure manner requires constant care and attention, with
    lots of "do's" and "don'ts" -- and even then there's always the Windows of
    opportunitiy for new malware which the anti-malware doesn't recognize yet.

    On the other hand, using Linux in a secure manner is easy: simply use the
    machine as you wish. There's nothing you have to do, and the only "don't"
    is setting up network services without knowing what you do (but even then,
    apps such as Apache have sane and secure default settings). You can click
    any Web link or file you want, view and open all the e-mails and
    attachments you like, and download anything that has your fancy. Nothing
    will execute until you explicitly tell it to -- and that requires jumping
    through several hoops, which will put off all but the most stubbornly
    stupid users.


    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  3. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Cross Posting HO wrote:

    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:
    >>
    >>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>> explained to them dozens of times.

    >>
    >> They need pictures. And glasses.

    >
    > I hear Linux must go in that direction if Joe Blow home user is going to
    > get on board with Linux. Linux has got to do a better job than what it's
    > doing, which is still word of mouth, using Avon and Tupperware parties.


    So what you are saying is that Linux should become as hole-riddled,
    malware-sensitive and crappy as Windows, complete with half-baked
    countermeasures such as anti-virus, anti-malware, "system cleanup" tools
    and the likes to become more popular? What have you been smoking?

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  4. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:
    >
    >> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >> explained to them dozens of times.

    >
    > They need pictures. And glasses.


    I believe some of them use glasses when posting, but fsck knows what they
    are drinking ;-)

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- PCLinuxOS 2007 --

  5. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    William Poaster wrote:

    >The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >explained to them dozens of times.


    It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.


  6. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:13:04 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    >> With linux, if the application turns out to malware, it can't do
    >> anything outside the user's file. Users don't have the ability to
    >> overwrite system files.

    >
    > In a single user, desktop system, it doesn't matter. When the users MP3
    > collection is gone, it's over with.



    Very few malicious programs will cause data loss as described above. The
    user might re-install Windows, but there's no intent to delete someone's
    mp3's from the black hats.

    -Thufir

  7. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:59:52 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:

    > Damage control is important. Microsoft has been toying with the idea of
    > damage control, and almost did it with Vista. But then they decided to
    > give regular users administrative rights, and the left that
    > Outlook/IE/VBScript/ActiveX back-door wide open, it meant that even with
    > ring zero control, the hackers could whack almost anything.



    don't you mean ring 3/4?


    -Thufir

  8. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:52:08 GMT, Thufir wrote:
    >On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:13:04 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:


    >>> With linux, if the application turns out to malware, it can't do
    >>> anything outside the user's file. Users don't have the ability to
    >>> overwrite system files.

    >>
    >> In a single user, desktop system, it doesn't matter. When the users MP3
    >> collection is gone, it's over with.



    >Very few malicious programs will cause data loss as described above. The
    >user might re-install Windows, but there's no intent to delete someone's
    >mp3's from the black hats.


    Not only that, but without going after system files, worms and virii are
    nearly impossible.

    In a sane system, email messages are only documents. They can't infect a
    system; they can't open the address book and resend themselves. They can't
    do a damn thing on their own.


    Microsoft: the company that made email dangerous.

  9. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:53:50 GMT, Thufir wrote:
    >On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:59:52 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:


    >> Damage control is important. Microsoft has been toying with the idea of
    >> damage control, and almost did it with Vista. But then they decided to
    >> give regular users administrative rights, and the left that
    >> Outlook/IE/VBScript/ActiveX back-door wide open, it meant that even with
    >> ring zero control, the hackers could whack almost anything.



    >don't you mean ring 3/4?


    With windows, it makes no difference.

  10. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Hi Chrisv

    Find More Linux Security related books here http://www.jumbooks.com
    and even Windows and other technical books too.

    On Jan 21, 9:49 pm, chrisv wrote:
    > William Poaster wrote:
    > >The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    > >windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    > >explained to them dozens of times.

    >
    > It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    > thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    > Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.



  11. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Jan 21, 8:18 am, Sinister Midget wrote:
    > On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:

    The bottom line.

    > > The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    > > windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    > > explained to them dozens of times.


    > They need pictures. And glasses.


    Glasses is really the key.

    Linux is available in source code format. It has been reviewed by
    numerous, perhaps thousands of security auditors, many of whom have
    found even theoretical vulnerabilities that couldn't be exploited -
    and yet these vulnerabilities are fixed.

    Even the NSA, CIA, DOD, and FBI have reviewed Linux. Ironically, one
    of their concerns is that Linux is TOO SECURE. Linux desktop users
    have the capability to send encrypted e-mail directly between each
    other using encryption keys that are not assigned by a certificate
    authority. This means that electronic wiretapping isn't possible.
    There are ways to monitor multiple communication media, to make sure
    that the key exchange itself is captured, but the traditional tactic
    of asking the CA for the key isn't an option.

    Windows on the other hand is not fully available for public review by
    anybody. The source code is protected by strict nondisclosure
    agreements, most of the code is only accessible by a small cadre of
    Microsoft engineers, and even then, the kernel is broken into modules
    so that no one engineer has access to the full kernel, or even enough
    of the kernel to identify vulnerabilities.

    Microsoft has made small pieces of code available for review, but it's
    only a fraction of the total code base.

    Ironically, there are even substantial portions of Windows that are
    rooted in Open Source code, but it's usually code licensed under terms
    like BSD or the revised NCSA license. These licenses permit the
    source code to be distributed in source code format, but they also
    permit licensees to create proprietary derivative products. We know
    that Microsoft has added a few "back doors", but it's pretty hard to
    know what has really been created, and how many holes there are.

    A study of several known viruses shows that there is no lack of ways
    to successfully crack a Windows system.




  12. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Rex Ballard writes:

    > On Jan 21, 8:18 am, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:

    > The bottom line.
    >
    >> > The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >> > windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >> > explained to them dozens of times.

    >
    >> They need pictures. And glasses.

    >
    > Glasses is really the key.
    >
    > Linux is available in source code format. It has been reviewed by
    > numerous, perhaps thousands of security auditors, many of whom have
    > found even theoretical vulnerabilities that couldn't be exploited -
    > and yet these vulnerabilities are fixed.
    >
    > Even the NSA, CIA, DOD, and FBI have reviewed Linux. Ironically, one
    > of their concerns is that Linux is TOO SECURE. Linux desktop users
    > have the capability to send encrypted e-mail directly between each
    > other using encryption keys that are not assigned by a certificate
    > authority. This means that electronic wiretapping isn't possible.
    > There are ways to monitor multiple communication media, to make sure
    > that the key exchange itself is captured, but the traditional tactic
    > of asking the CA for the key isn't an option.


    It is also possible under windows. But you knew that.

  13. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    chrisv wrote:

    >William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >>The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>explained to them dozens of times.

    >
    >It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.


    Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.

    If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.


  14. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    chrisv wrote:
    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> William Poaster wrote:
    >>
    >>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>> explained to them dozens of times.

    >> It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >> thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >> Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.

    >
    > Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >
    > If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    > name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    > expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.
    >



    What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*. Chrisv just
    rune around on Unset with the word *plonk/delete* on his breath. He's
    not worth a read. He doesn't have anything to say, not really, other
    than, plonk/delete.

  15. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:30:01 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >chrisv wrote:
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>>> explained to them dozens of times.
    >>> It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >>> thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >>> Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.

    >>
    >> Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >>
    >> If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    >> name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    >> expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.
    >>



    >What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*. Chrisv just
    >rune around on Unset with the word *plonk/delete* on his breath. He's
    >not worth a read. He doesn't have anything to say, not really, other
    >than, plonk/delete.


    When you behave like such an asshole, you don't do yourself any service.

    All you've succeeded in doing is proving chrisv's opinion to be correct.

  16. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    >nym-shifting troll wrote:
    >>
    >>chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >>>
    >>> If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    >>> name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    >>> expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.

    >>
    >>What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*.


    You are lying, as is expected, from a nym-shifting troll.

    What I'm really saying is this:

    A) It is powerful evidence that one has nothing of any worth to add
    to the discussion if one will not stand behind a name long-enough to
    establish some level of credibility.

    Indeed, constant nym-shifting is powerful evidence that one has
    already demonstrated their lack of worth, and has been kill-filed by
    many as a result.

    B) If you are someone whose posts I do not want to read, and are
    therefore kill-filed, getting me to read your message is not as easy
    as picking a new name and posting with it.

    >When you behave like such an asshole, you don't do yourself any service.
    >
    >All you've succeeded in doing is proving chrisv's opinion to be correct.


    Indeed.

    The nym-shifter knows what he is. Inferior.


  17. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:30:01 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>>>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>>>> explained to them dozens of times.
    >>>> It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >>>> thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >>>> Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.
    >>> Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >>>
    >>> If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    >>> name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    >>> expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.
    >>>

    >
    >
    >> What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*. Chrisv just
    >> rune around on Unset with the word *plonk/delete* on his breath. He's
    >> not worth a read. He doesn't have anything to say, not really, other
    >> than, plonk/delete.

    >
    > When you behave like such an asshole, you don't do yourself any service.
    >
    > All you've succeeded in doing is proving chrisv's opinion to be correct.


    Opinions are a dime a dozen, and everyone has got one. And you can kis
    my ass Nomad.

  18. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:07:24 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >AZ Nomad wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:30:01 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>>>>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>>>>> explained to them dozens of times.
    >>>>> It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >>>>> thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >>>>> Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.
    >>>> Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    >>>> name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    >>>> expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.
    >>>>

    >>
    >>
    >>> What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*. Chrisv just
    >>> rune around on Unset with the word *plonk/delete* on his breath. He's
    >>> not worth a read. He doesn't have anything to say, not really, other
    >>> than, plonk/delete.

    >>
    >> When you behave like such an asshole, you don't do yourself any service.
    >>
    >> All you've succeeded in doing is proving chrisv's opinion to be correct.


    >Opinions are a dime a dozen, and everyone has got one. And you can kis
    >my ass Nomad.


    Again, you prove yourself an asshole.

  19. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:07:24 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:30:01 -0500, Cross Posting HO wrote:
    >>>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>>> chrisv wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The wintrolls trotting out the same old "if linux was a popular as
    >>>>>>> windoze..", "linux isn't a big target.." crap, in spite of it being
    >>>>>>> explained to them dozens of times.
    >>>>>> It's the same lies, over and over. Another one is "the consumer
    >>>>>> thinks Linux is crap, as is proven by it's small market share", one of
    >>>>>> Flat****'s favorite lies, and which has been rebutted countless times.
    >>>>> Note to "Deepak". Your post was deleted, unread.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you want to discuss something with me, pick a stable, non-trollish
    >>>>> name, and don't be an worthless troll. Then, and only then, can you
    >>>>> expect that I may read and respond-to your comments.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>>> What he is saying is that he just can't *HANDEL THE TRUTH*. Chrisv just
    >>>> rune around on Unset with the word *plonk/delete* on his breath. He's
    >>>> not worth a read. He doesn't have anything to say, not really, other
    >>>> than, plonk/delete.
    >>> When you behave like such an asshole, you don't do yourself any service.
    >>>
    >>> All you've succeeded in doing is proving chrisv's opinion to be correct.

    >
    >> Opinions are a dime a dozen, and everyone has got one. And you can kis
    >> my ass Nomad.

    >
    > Again, you prove yourself an asshole.



    So what? And you dropped out of the one your mama has. Otherwise, you
    wouldn't be here. You are a wannabe asshole, and you are for sure a NG
    lapdog. You just make sure you wash, dry chrisv's ass and you brush your
    teeth before you pucker up and kiss that ass.

  20. Re: Linux security vs Windows with A/V software and firewall.

    Rex Ballard wrote:
    > On Jan 21, 8:18 am, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> On 2008-01-21, William Poaster claimed:

    > The bottom line.
    >
    > A study of several known viruses shows that there is no lack of ways
    > to successfully crack a Windows system.
    >


    Linux is written by Human Begins too. That last time I looked, Human
    Beings are not infallible. Therefore, you can count on that nothing we
    do as Human Beings or crate as Human Beings is infallible.

    And if you think that Linux is not infallible or attackable due to Human
    Beings being involved, then you are just kidding yourself. Linux is not
    bullet proof and is not the bed of roses you make it out to believe.

    Nothing is that, bullet proof, and they are rally not coming after
    Linux, hard. You get enough clueless users using Linux, then the proof
    will be in the pudding as to how well Linux, any version of it, with
    stands it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast