So where's all the Linux viruses? - Linux

This is a discussion on So where's all the Linux viruses? - Linux ; Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly: > Unless one is ultra-braindead and opens all the NAT ports, there's no > way a packet pummeler will get through that router, regardless of > what ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 150

Thread: So where's all the Linux viruses?

  1. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:

    > Unless one is ultra-braindead and opens all the NAT ports, there's no
    > way a packet pummeler will get through that router, regardless of
    > what OS is being run on computer(s) behind it.


    NAT router's are not exactly bullet-proof though, thanks to Microsoft's
    b0rken protocols:

    A newly reported vulnerability in UPnP affects most SOHO routers and
    when exploited can open up your entire network. It can also be used to
    magnify other exploits. This could get serious.

    ....

    UPnP as implemented in many small office / home office (SOHO) routers is
    vulnerable to being reconfigured without your knowledge. If you are
    using NAT this exploit can map ports through your router to your
    computer, or any computer on your network. Basically it can defeat the
    security your router is providing you. The fix? Turn off UPnP.

    ....

    The UPnP protocol was originally designed by Microsoft (and what good
    vulnerability wasn't)

    ....

    The problem is that there is very little security built in to UPnP and
    no authentication.
    http://www.nist.org/news.php?extend.125

    Although this was reported in 2006, it's likely many people will still
    be using routers with the original firmware and UPnP turned on.

    > But never mind; you're safe with Vista.
    >
    > Wait...maybe not...
    >
    > http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...viruses_1.html
    > http://www.avantnews.com/modules/new...hp?storyid=322
    > http://www.crime-research.org/news/02.04.2007/2595/
    > http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=42663
    >
    > A reprisal of a boot sector virus? Wow. For its part Linux has its
    > own list of malware:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
    >
    > Most of these are true viruses, infecting executables.


    Making one and spreading it are different things entirely.

    Windows users tend to run everything as root by default; Linux users
    don't; it's that simple. If Microsoft ever manages to actually figure
    out how to build a true multiuser OS with proper security built-in,
    rather than just slapped on as an annoying afterthought that gets turned
    off by fed-up users, then they'll be well on their way to suppressing
    those one Million+ Windows viruses.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    23:44:49 up 4 days, 8:40, 3 users, load average: 0.03, 0.13, 0.09

  2. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
    > Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    > :
    >> Identity wrote:


    >>> Now,

    >> *plonk*
    >>

    >
    > He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
    >
    > For what all this is worth. ;-)


    I didn't even see it.

    It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.

    Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
    Level3.net.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    23:51:12 up 4 days, 8:47, 3 users, load average: 0.26, 0.15, 0.10

  3. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100
    :
    > Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
    >> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    >> :
    >>> Identity wrote:

    >
    >>>> Now,
    >>> *plonk*
    >>>

    >>
    >> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
    >>
    >> For what all this is worth. ;-)

    >
    > I didn't even see it.
    >
    > It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
    >
    > Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
    > Level3.net.
    >


    Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old NNTP
    server, routing through giganews.

    My brain's beginning to hurt...

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's there and it works.
    Windows. It's there, but does it work?
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > I for one would have thought the difference obvious, since
    > SLRN includes the email addresses within <>.


    True, but not everyone reads headers, especially when some spider
    collects the posts for google groups or such.

    > In any event, I tend to respond to the actual message. ;-)


    Sure, but this guy is probably just posting nicely for awhile, to lull
    ya.

    --
    It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
    is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
    isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
    -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

  5. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Identity belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>

    >>
    >> Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    >> he is adopting my name without permission.
    >>
    >> Thanks.

    >
    > Christine, here you go you little *bitch*. Now, maybe, you'll stop
    > whining like a little *bitch*, you little bitch.


    Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

    Maybe Spock was talking about you:

    --
    "That unit is a woman."
    "A mass of conflicting impulses."
    -- Spock and Nomad, "The Changeling", stardate 3541.9

  6. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Identity wrote:
    >
    >>Now,

    >
    > *plonk*


    You're slow on the draw today, chrisv. Heh heh.

    --
    When you're not looking at it, this fortune is written in FORTRAN.

  7. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    >> technically, should be secure.

    >
    > No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
    > Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
    > more than IIS ones?


    Uh, because they're more useful?

    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723

    Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
    attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
    for compromised machines, Amit said.

    > Correct, though with checksums one has a fighting chance.
    > But really, Linux isn't more secure than Windows now, and we
    > all need to be more careful.


    Indeed. You mean to say "Apache isn't more secure than Windows now",
    I think.

    --
    Many a writer seems to think he is never profound except when he can't
    understand his own meaning.
    -- George D. Prentice

  8. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the Chris Ahlstrom FAKEBOI wrote:
    >>
    >> WTF? This is nothing but a bunch of damn BS out of you.
    >>
    >> Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is nothing but bull****.
    >>
    >> I don't think any of you people are sane.

    >
    > You want sanity, try alt.24hour.support. ;-)


    Told ya he was tryin' to lull ya!

    --
    As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there
    is always a future in Computer Maintenance.
    -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

  9. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400
    :
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    >>> technically, should be secure.

    >>
    >> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
    >> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
    >> more than IIS ones?

    >
    > Uh, because they're more useful?
    >
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
    >
    > Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
    > attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
    > for compromised machines, Amit said.
    >
    >> Correct, though with checksums one has a fighting chance.
    >> But really, Linux isn't more secure than Windows now, and we
    >> all need to be more careful.

    >
    > Indeed. You mean to say "Apache isn't more secure than Windows now",
    > I think.
    >


    A point, indeed a point, though I'll admit to wondering. There's
    probably multiple issues here:

    [1] Apache vulnerability found the hard way e.g. some sort of
    buffer overflow hack.

    [2] A default password a la the very old SYSTEM/MANAGER
    VAX/VMS default account setup (this is unlikely admittedly,
    but vaguely possible).

    [3] Cross-scripting vulnerabilities coupled with phishing techniques.

    Wish I knew for sure what they're using. The above article does
    have the following paragraph:

    Since Linux machines can be used to more easily
    create specially crafted networking packets, they
    can be used in highly sophisticated online attacks,
    said Iftach Amit, director of security research with
    Finjan's malicious code research centre.

    [Translation: socket(AF_INET, SOCK_RAW, 0), if I'm not
    mistaken. I'd have to fiddle, and it's not all that useful
    to me personally for writing custom packets, though it
    might be useful to sniff my LAN. I still remember the fuss
    regarding XP's capability to generate raw socket packets,
    and it turns out *Linux* is the preferred OS for churning
    out such.]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's there and it works.
    Windows. It's there, but does it work?
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer wrote on Tue, 14
    > Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100 :
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote
    >>> on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    >>> :
    >>>> Identity wrote:


    >>>>> Now,
    >>>> *plonk*
    >>>>
    >>> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
    >>>
    >>> For what all this is worth. ;-)

    >>
    >> I didn't even see it.
    >>
    >> It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
    >>
    >> Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter
    >> for Level3.net.

    >
    > Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old
    > NNTP server, routing through giganews.
    >
    > My brain's beginning to hurt...


    Message-ID:
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.225.26.25

    whois 4.225.26.25
    OrgName: Level 3 Communications, Inc.

    host 4.225.26.25
    dialup-4.225.26.25.Dial1.Cincinnati1.Level3.net

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    01:55:04 up 4 days, 10:50, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.03

  11. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Homer
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:09 +0100
    > :
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv wrote on
    >>> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    >>> :
    >>>> Identity wrote:
    >>>>> Now,
    >>>> *plonk*
    >>>>
    >>> He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
    >>>
    >>> For what all this is worth. ;-)

    >> I didn't even see it.
    >>
    >> It must be one of those Dizum or Motzarella posts.
    >>
    >> Hmmm [quick look on Google], it seems it got caught in the filter for
    >> Level3.net.
    >>

    >
    > Level3, huh? My path suggests he's coming in from Earthlink's old NNTP
    > server, routing through giganews.
    >
    > My brain's beginning to hurt...
    >


    You people are *clowns*. I never knew that a dial-up connection could be
    so powerful. You know, I could easily get an access number in
    Mississippi. 24hrs huh? I expect the loony-ness in that NG to happen.
    But this ****ing cesspool called Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is just below
    it and not by much.

    I may look and see if this one NNTP service that didn't work with Vista,
    because it's software was not Vista compliant may be Vista compliant.
    They were working on it. And no one could track on headers. There is
    nothing to key on, just to **** with this NG and the regulars in it. :-P

    I wouldn't mess with you, because you are not so much of an ass-wipe,
    like the rest. And I like Ballard. But the rest of these mother****ing
    ass-wipe wannabe gurus are just that -- mother****ing ass-wipe wannabe
    gurus.


  12. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    On Oct 14, 8:31*pm, Identity wrote:
    >
    > You people are *clowns*. I never knew that a dial-up connection could be
    > so powerful. You know, I could easily get an access number in
    > Mississippi.


    Who you think yer crappin? You've got dialup because you can't afford
    anything faster. You have to kite a check for cash at the gas station
    and run to the bank on payday to cover it, remember?

    > 24hrs huh? I expect the loony-ness in that NG to happen.
    > But this ****ing cesspool called Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is just below
    > it and not by much.


    You're at the bottom of the cesspool's drain, slurping up the thick
    stuff, bozo. You love it here.

    > I may look and see if this one NNTP service that didn't work with Vista,
    > because it's software was not Vista compliant may be Vista compliant.
    > They were working on it. And no one could track on headers. There is
    > nothing to key on, just to **** with this NG and the regulars in it. :-P


    They'll know you: your lack of style is easily identified.



  13. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:




    Montgomery you old Geritol drunk, what makes you think that the same
    rules that apply to your dumbass in other NG(s) that you chase in don't
    apply to you here?

    You need go on and lay down with your old ass, you Geritol old drunk.
    And you should take the Geritol bottle and stick it up you ass sideways
    and twist it.

    I stopped reading you cluck and whine months ago, and you have been told
    that you old moron.

  14. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Identity wrote:
    > COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Montgomery you old [snip]


    I loved it when sock puppets talk.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  15. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > Identity wrote:
    >> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Montgomery you old [snip]

    >
    > I loved it when sock puppets talk.
    >


    You should know, since you're one of them. Let's not forget your
    personal visit to Vista.General, you ass-wipe.

  16. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    On Oct 14, 9:49*pm, Identity wrote:
    > COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Montgomery you old Geritol drunk, what makes you think that the same
    > rules that apply to your dumbass in other NG(s) that you chase in don't
    > * apply to you here?
    >
    > You need go on and lay down with your old ass, you Geritol old drunk.
    > And you should take the Geritol bottle and stick it up you ass sideways
    > and twist it.
    >
    > I stopped reading you cluck and whine months ago, and you have been told
    > that you old moron.


    HA! Your reply to me proves what I've said all along: you HAVE to
    read those who openly and joyfully piss in your face. You can't HELP
    yourself. You become OBSESSED with them.

    You sick little check-kiting puppy. You're really very entertaining.

  17. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Identity wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> Identity wrote:
    >>> COLA Loon's Nick-list Keeper wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Montgomery you old [snip]

    >>
    >> I loved it when sock puppets talk.

    >
    > You should know, since you're one of them. Let's not forget
    > your personal visit to Vista.General, you ass-wipe.


    Bingo! Same troll. Seems to have heartburn over my reply to one
    of its troll friends, who crossposted (favoured troll tactic).

    Nonetheless, this type childish vulgar talk is an example of:

    http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll

    If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
    ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from
    obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults, call
    them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.
    also

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics [...]

    [3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The
    liberal use of profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective,
    particularly when used against you more dignified opponents. Your
    experience as a school yard bully can be handy here.

    [... and]

    34. Use of false identities. Create throw away identities to
    enter the newsgroup to spread discord and after a few days or
    weeks, stop using that identity. If you are losing an argument
    create a new identity to support the position of your main
    identity. If things are getting slow, create a few identities
    counter to your primary identity. Start a n-on-1 argument with
    your primary identity being outnumbered. Then have each of your
    new identities be convinced by your primary identity to the error
    of their ways.
    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  18. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, High Plains Thumper belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Identity wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> This applies to you too. You need to go find yourself some ...

    >
    > Bingo! No application, try again. Nonetheless, this type
    > childish vulgar talk is an example of:
    >
    > http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm
    >
    >
    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
    >
    > If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's
    > ability to cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from
    > obviously incorrect variations of the name etc. insults, call
    > them netcops, netnannies, homosexuals.


    And he had

    fun !
    fun !
    fun !

    Till his daddy took his modem awayyyyy!

    --
    Beware the new TTY code!

  19. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    >>> technically, should be secure.

    >>
    >> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
    >> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
    >> more than IIS ones?

    >
    > Uh, because they're more useful?
    >
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
    >
    > Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
    > attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
    > for compromised machines, Amit said.


    So, in other words, by your own admission, should an attacker find it
    useful to attach Linux, then they succeed at a high rate.

    Sounds a lot like the "If Linux were as popular a target as windows, it
    would be compromised as often as windows" argument.

  20. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:26:09 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>>> Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix
    >>>> model, technically, should be secure.
    >>>
    >>> No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
    >>> Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
    >>> more than IIS ones?

    >>
    >> Uh, because they're more useful?
    >>
    >>

    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...25736A000E4723
    >>
    >> Capabilities like this make Linux machines highly coveted by online
    >> attackers, and they fetch a premium in the underground marketplace
    >> for compromised machines, Amit said.

    >
    > So, in other words, by your own admission, should an attacker find it
    > useful to attach Linux, then they succeed at a high rate.


    Nope. Not linux. Apache. Try to keep up, Erik, even if that is very
    difficult for someone like you

    > Sounds a lot like the "If Linux were as popular a target as windows, it
    > would be compromised as often as windows" argument.


    And it would still be bull****
    --
    Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
    dumb to handle the real thing


+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast