the truth about viruses .. - Linux

This is a discussion on the truth about viruses .. - Linux ; Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not simply be a “fact of life” for anyone using a computer. Antivirus software is basically just a dirty hack used to fill a gap in your system’s defenses left by the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: the truth about viruses ..

  1. the truth about viruses ..

    Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not simply
    be a “fact of life” for anyone using a computer. Antivirus software is
    basically just a dirty hack used to fill a gap in your system’s defenses
    left by the negligence of software vendors who are unwilling to invest
    the resources to correct certain classes of security vulnerabilities"

    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=286

  2. Re: the truth about viruses ..

    Doug Mentohl writes:

    > Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not simply


    A blatant lie. I don't trust MS, but your statement above is typical
    "Mental".

    > be a “fact of life” for anyone using a computer. Antivirus software is
    > basically just a dirty hack used to fill a gap in your system’s
    > defenses left by the negligence of software vendors who are unwilling
    > to invest the resources to correct certain classes of security
    > vulnerabilities"
    >
    > http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=286


    --
    Un mar de fondo sereno hay en mĂ*. ¡Cualquiera adivinarĂ*a que oculta
    graciosos y traviesos monstruos!
    Friedrich Nietzsche, "AsĂ* hablĂł Zaratustra".

  3. Re: the truth about viruses ..

    Hadron wrote:

    > Doug Mentohl writes:
    >
    >> Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not simply

    >
    > A blatant lie. I don't trust MS, but your statement above is typical
    > "Mental".
    >


    No it is not a lie, virus's should not exist. They need not exist, platforms
    do not have to be hosts for virus's. Users could be 100% protected from the
    possibility of a virus.

    MS could have dealt with this, but they didn't. That is not because it
    couldn't be dealt with, all the way back to early Win32/Win98 it could have
    been capped.

    The blame for Virus's on computers is laid at MS's feet and no other. They
    made it possible, then compounded the situation with their Office, then di
    absolutely nothing to stop it.

    I sometimes wish that Norton had never existed, because that would almost
    certainly mean that MS would have collapsed in a heap long ago. What would
    have replaced it, well Linux wasn't ready but maybe there would have been a
    spurt of activity from the big players in the software houses, maybe Mac
    would have taken over, UNIX cliens would have probably just stuck with
    terminals and workstations.

    I don't know what would have happened, but I know that the only reason MS
    survived was because third parties took on the role of security guard, MS
    played no part in that but have never shown any indication that they were
    greatefull for all that Norton and others did to save them.




  4. Re: the truth about viruses ..

    BearItAll writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Doug Mentohl writes:
    >>
    >>> Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not simply

    >>
    >> A blatant lie. I don't trust MS, but your statement above is typical
    >> "Mental".
    >>

    >
    > No it is not a lie, virus's should not exist. They need not exist, platforms
    > do not have to be hosts for virus's. Users could be 100% protected from the
    > possibility of a virus.


    Do you EVER read what you are replying to?

    It IS a lie. I never said Virus's should exist or that platforms should
    be a host. But you DO know, dont you, that Virus#s have existed for
    Linux? That the more people use it, the more they will appear? You do
    know that Linux has problems too? Yes, a LOT better than MS but donÄt
    pretend it#s perfect.

    MS DO fix vulnerabilities. Not quick enough it's true.

    A Virus is NOT a vulnerability. A vulnerability is what makes the
    machine vulnerable. Like the one posted yesterday showing a back door
    into the linux kernel.

    In short - your reply didn't contradict what I said at all. You just
    threw in a load of hyperbole.


  5. Re: the truth about viruses ..

    BearItAll wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Doug Mentohl writes:
    >>
    >>> Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not
    >>> simply

    >>
    >> A blatant lie. I don't trust MS, but your statement above is typical
    >> "Mental".
    >>

    >
    > No it is not a lie, virus's should not exist. They need not exist,
    > platforms do not have to be hosts for virus's. Users could be 100%
    > protected from the possibility of a virus.


    This is pure-D bull****.



    > The blame for Virus's on computers is laid at MS's feet and no other.


    The blame for viruses on computers is laid at virus writers' feet and no
    other.




    > They made it possible, then compounded the situation with their
    > Office, then di absolutely nothing to stop it.


    You can only be forgiven this ignorant statement if you haven't used Office
    in the last 4 years. Have you?



    > I sometimes wish that Norton had never existed, because that would
    > almost certainly mean that MS would have collapsed in a heap long
    > ago. What would have replaced it, well Linux wasn't ready but maybe
    > there would have been a spurt of activity from the big players in the
    > software houses, maybe Mac would have taken over, UNIX cliens would
    > have probably just stuck with terminals and workstations.


    if, if, if: a Linux advocate's best friend.





  6. Re: the truth about viruses ..

    DFS wrote:

    > BearItAll wrote:
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Doug Mentohl writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Microsoft doesn’t fix virus vulnerabilities .. Viruses need not
    >>>> simply
    >>>
    >>> A blatant lie. I don't trust MS, but your statement above is typical
    >>> "Mental".
    >>>

    >>
    >> No it is not a lie, virus's should not exist. They need not exist,
    >> platforms do not have to be hosts for virus's. Users could be 100%
    >> protected from the possibility of a virus.

    >
    > This is pure-D bull****.
    >

    Not really. It may be impossible to have an OS which simply *can't* be
    infected by a virus.
    But is *is* possible to have an OS which makes it very hard for a virus.
    Like linux, for example

    >> The blame for Virus's on computers is laid at MS's feet and no other.

    >
    > The blame for viruses on computers is laid at virus writers' feet and no
    > other.
    >

    Bull****. Virus writers would not exist if they can't effectivly deploy
    their malware. Fact is, windows makes it extremely simple to have virus
    infections on a huge scale

    >
    >> They made it possible, then compounded the situation with their
    >> Office, then di absolutely nothing to stop it.

    >
    > You can only be forgiven this ignorant statement if you haven't used
    > Office in the last 4 years. Have you?


    You will tell us honestly that Office viruses don't exist? Really?
    In fact, they were rampant the last years

    --
    To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
    To mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.


+ Reply to Thread