Virus Protection Not Needed? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Virus Protection Not Needed? - Ubuntu ; Christopher Hunter wrote: > The most obvious one is that anti-virus software does *nothing* useful, > particularly under Linux. In the Windows world, it's trivially easy to > construct a virus. When you do, you'll have months until the "anti-virus" ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: Virus Protection Not Needed?

  1. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:


    > The most obvious one is that anti-virus software does *nothing* useful,
    > particularly under Linux. In the Windows world, it's trivially easy to
    > construct a virus. When you do, you'll have months until the "anti-virus"
    > snake-oil salesmen discover it and add it to their "signature" files.


    I ran an av program under linux for a while. Gave up as all it did was tell
    me that the very suspicious looking spam messages in my inbox contained
    virii. Something that was a reasonable guess anyway. Not really relevent
    as I read mail in linux and did not blindly forward them on.

    Incidentally, ran windows for years with no virus protection. Sat behind a
    linux box acting essentially as a firewall / router. Never read email on
    it and if downloading software only ran reputable stuff from reputable
    sites. I _may_ once have an attempted browser hijack but that was it.
    After several years I did run a scan, nothing.

    I would strongly point out that this machine was sitting behind a firewall.

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  2. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> AV vendors have a hard time selling AV packages to linux users.

    >
    > Yes - for a few good reasons:
    >
    > The most obvious one is that anti-virus software does *nothing* useful,
    > particularly under Linux. In the Windows world, it's trivially easy to
    > construct a virus. When you do, you'll have months until the "anti-virus"
    > snake-oil salesmen discover it and add it to their "signature" files.
    >
    > The other significant reason is that the average Linux user is rather more
    > computer-savvy than any Windoze user. That's why they run Linux!
    >



    Yet another significant reason is the design of Unix underlying the
    system. Mac OSX hasn't had any malware threats, either, since it moved
    to Unix. Actually, I think Unix is the most significant reason, superior
    though Linux users be.


    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+===+====+=====+==== =+=====+=====+====+++
    NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
    Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
    They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You
    have no recourse or protection.

  3. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    In article , Mike Yetto wrote:
    >Bada bing Bruce Sinclair
    > bada bang:
    >> In article <6lncjoFd80s7U4@mid.individual.net>, cehunter@invalid.inv wrote:
    >>>propman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There are "known" linux viruses too....thanks for the reply. :-)
    >>>
    >>>*None* of them work, because they all ask for permission to do anything!

    >>
    >> The ones I've heard about are all effectively trojans and have to be run by
    >> the user. The best one I ever saw was in someone's .sig and said something
    >> like ....
    >>
    >> Hi I am a linux virus. Please send me to 10 of your friends, then delete
    >> some of your system files. Thanks.
    >>

    >I never realized the Boy Scout virus made it to Linux.


    I don't think it did ... as I said, I saw it in someone's .sig (and only
    there).

    >Mike "honor bound to send it along" Yetto


    As I said, I stole it (or its general idea) ... feel free.
    The scary part is, it might work for some people.




  4. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Mike Bleiweiss wrote:
    >
    >> Linux is not "virus-proof"

    >
    > To all intents and purposes, it is.


    That should be "for all practical purposes, it is".
    Let's not fool ourselves: Each system which can execute programs which
    can create (or modify) programs is prone to viruses.
    There are, however, a number of facts that will make Linux viruses less
    frequent and less damaging:

    1. Linux is a moving target. The kernel, libraries, applications change
    occasionally and the Linux environment is heterogenious. Try giving a
    reasonably complex binary away to another Linux user ;-)
    2. Linux is not as wide-spread as that other OS. Infecting a Linux box
    will give you maybe a few tens to a few hundreds of bots, while
    infecting a 'dows box will give you tens of thousands of bots.
    3. Linux users are usually more familiar with their machine. Most of
    them know their machine and know how to look out for and spot strange
    behavior.
    4. Nobody will sue you if you detect, publicize, and fix a security hole
    in Linux or any one of their open source applications, quite to the
    contrary: eternal fame and glory ;-)
    5. Linux users are familiar with the concept of an "unprivileged user",
    containing any damage to an unprivileged user account for quite some time.

    I'd say that someone with enough (criminal) energy would be able to
    produce a Linux virus. However, it may not live long enough to cause
    real harm.

    "Be careful out there",

    Josef
    --
    These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
    Josef Mllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
    Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

  5. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Mike Bleiweiss wrote:
    >
    >> Linux is not "virus-proof"

    >
    > To all intents and purposes, it is.


    At least anything that would make Linux vulnerable for a in-the-wild
    virus is considered a serious bug and there would be fixes for all
    well known distributions within a few days.

    Florian
    --

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  6. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:12:45 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >> Mike Bleiweiss wrote:
    >>
    >>> Linux is not "virus-proof"

    >>
    >> To all intents and purposes, it is.

    >
    > That should be "for all practical purposes, it is".
    > Let's not fool ourselves: Each system which can execute programs which
    > can create (or modify) programs is prone to viruses.
    > There are, however, a number of facts that will make Linux viruses less
    > frequent and less damaging:
    >
    > 1. Linux is a moving target. The kernel, libraries, applications change
    > occasionally and the Linux environment is heterogenious. Try giving a
    > reasonably complex binary away to another Linux user ;-)
    > 2. Linux is not as wide-spread as that other OS. Infecting a Linux box
    > will give you maybe a few tens to a few hundreds of bots, while
    > infecting a 'dows box will give you tens of thousands of bots.


    The old trap "if Linux was as popular as Windows", which completely
    disregards the vastly different security model.
    Well Linux machines are *highly* valued amongst crackers, & there are
    *more* Linux servers running the Internet than Windows ones (According to
    M$'s Ballmer, Linux servers 60% & Windows about 35%). How come they
    haven't been targeted? The answer is because Linux machines in general are
    *far* harder to crack than windoze ones, so why pick a hard target when
    you can knock over loads of easy ones.

    http://librenix.com/?inode=21

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...inux/#bursting


    > 3. Linux users are usually more familiar with their machine. Most of
    > them know their machine and know how to look out for and spot strange
    > behavior.
    > 4. Nobody will sue you if you detect, publicize, and fix a security hole
    > in Linux or any one of their open source applications, quite to the
    > contrary: eternal fame and glory ;-)
    > 5. Linux users are familiar with the concept of an "unprivileged user",
    > containing any damage to an unprivileged user account for quite some time.
    >
    > I'd say that someone with enough (criminal) energy would be able to
    > produce a Linux virus. However, it may not live long enough to cause
    > real harm.


    Which has been the case in previous attempts at creating Linux viruses.

    --
    Did you know?
    Hadron Quack & his wife divorced over religious differences.
    He thought he was God, but she didn't.


  7. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Florian Diesch wrote:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Mike Bleiweiss wrote:
    >>
    >>> Linux is not "virus-proof"

    >> To all intents and purposes, it is.

    >
    > At least anything that would make Linux vulnerable for a in-the-wild
    > virus is considered a serious bug and there would be fixes for all
    > well known distributions within a few days.


    A virus doesn't have to infect the kernel or the entire system.
    Sending tons of email spam can be done from every user's account. This
    spam can also include emails to spread to other users!

    If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    would download and show a certain kind of video about favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    what would you think would happen?

    --
    These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
    Josef Mllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
    Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

  8. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    In Florian Diesch:

    [Snip...]

    > considered a serious bug and there would be fixes for all well known
    > distributions within a few days.


    A recent example of how Linux is *LIGHTYEARS* ahead of M$ in this respect:

    http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571

    That's *NOT* something that can wait until next Patch Tuesday, or whatever.

    M$ Support/Security: "Never" is GREAT for us; is "Never" good for you, too?

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).

  9. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Josef Moellers wrote:

    > If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    > System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    > would download and show a certain kind of video about > favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    > what would you think would happen?


    Joe would see a dialog asking him to enter his password in order to
    install it.

    Joe would then need to take careful aim and shoot himself in his own
    foot...

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

  10. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Josef Moellers wrote:
    >
    >> If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    >> System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    >> would download and show a certain kind of video about >> favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    >> what would you think would happen?

    >
    > Joe would see a dialog asking him to enter his password in order to
    > install it.
    >
    > Joe would then need to take careful aim and shoot himself in his own
    > foot...
    >


    No, most likely he'll be so desperate that he'll shoot over and over
    again just to see this f*cking video (pun intended).

    --
    These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
    Josef Mllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
    Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

  11. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Patrick wrote:
    > I've seen a number of messages saying that with Linux or Ubuntu
    > virus protection is not needed. However, my WinXP system was just
    > trashed by a trogen horse virus. Since I always use Verizon security
    > suite with my WinXP, I wonder if the virus came in through the Ubuntu
    > system which did not have a virus protection. My computer vendor had to
    > re-format both hard drives in order to make sure that the virus was
    > wiped out, none of their programs would remove it. My system was a
    > dual-boot system and I shared files between Ubuntu and WinXP. The only
    > way that I can figure out is that the virus came in through the Ubuntu
    > system and when I used WinXP it trashed my boot sector and various files
    > through out the two hard disks. I have scanned my two external hard
    > drives that I use for backups and they are clean, so can reclaim most of
    > my data.
    >
    > When I put Ubuntu back on my system, I'll have to also install a
    > virus protection software, what would be a good one to use? I've seen a
    > couple of posts suggesting rkhunter or Free AVG Linus antivirus. Looking
    > for one that does a good job and is easy to install as my Linux
    > expertise is limited.

    Personally I use ClamAV on my server box just to check email messages
    before passing them on to windows machines. Also, if I download a
    windows .exe file I can scan it before running it under windows.

  12. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?


    "Harold Stevens" wrote in message
    news:slrngfd1m8.5si.wookie@aces.localdomain...
    > In <48f66348$0$196$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> Dirk T. Verbeek:
    >
    > [Snip...]
    >
    >> An 'owned' Linux box is not unknown

    >
    > In about the same way that abandoned property trespass is not unknown.
    >
    > OTOH, online just seconds, and have M$ botnets all over your ass:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6752853.stm
    >
    > Pareto Analysis: M$ is by far the dominant malware; "other" is an outlier.
    >
    > The clueful who can simply do not use M$ while online. Problem solved, and
    > M$ fanbois whining about hypothetical Linux malware will please STFU.
    >

    Linsuckit moron



  13. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    > Yet another significant reason is the design of Unix underlying the
    > system. Mac OSX hasn't had any malware threats, either, since it moved
    > to Unix


    It has, but again it depends on the user being non-tech-savvy enough
    to install a "special codec" to "watch" some dodgy video stream.

  14. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    On 2008-10-16, Josef Moellers wrote:
    > Florian Diesch wrote:
    >> Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mike Bleiweiss wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Linux is not "virus-proof"
    >>> To all intents and purposes, it is.

    >>
    >> At least anything that would make Linux vulnerable for a in-the-wild
    >> virus is considered a serious bug and there would be fixes for all
    >> well known distributions within a few days.

    >
    > A virus doesn't have to infect the kernel or the entire system.
    > Sending tons of email spam can be done from every user's account. This
    > spam can also include emails to spread to other users!
    >
    > If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    > System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    > would download and show a certain kind of video about > favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    > what would you think would happen?
    >


    It's not a very effective virus if it requires action on the part of
    the user to get it to do something.

    The solution is simple: Do not execute files from unknown sources.
    This is true in both OS', but it is much easier to accidentally run an
    infected executable under Windows than it is under Linux.


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  15. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Joe wrote:

    > Josef Moellers wrote:
    >> If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    >> System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    >> would download and show a certain kind of video about >> favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    >> what would you think would happen?

    >
    > It's not a very effective virus if it requires action on the part of
    > the user to get it to do something.


    Time for this link again? ;-) Based on Josef's comments, it seems
    appropriate.

    http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

  16. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    On 2008-10-17, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >
    >> Josef Moellers wrote:
    >>> If Joe Averageuser were sitting in front of a highly secure Operating
    >>> System and he'd receive an email promising that the program attached
    >>> would download and show a certain kind of video about >>> favorite celebrity>, but the program would also send spam emails ...
    >>> what would you think would happen?

    >>
    >> It's not a very effective virus if it requires action on the part of
    >> the user to get it to do something.

    >
    > Time for this link again? ;-) Based on Josef's comments, it seems
    > appropriate.
    >
    > http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg
    >


    Business Darwinism. Those are the employees you fire to make room for
    people with a half a brain... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  17. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Joe wrote:

    > It's not a very effective virus if it requires action on the part of
    > the user to get it to do something.


    True enough.

    > The solution is simple: Do not execute files from unknown sources.
    > This is true in both OS', but it is much easier to accidentally run an
    > infected executable under Windows than it is under Linux.


    Windows /still/ arbitrarily opens email attachments, executes malicious code
    embedded into web pages and so on. Even their very latest "secure" versions
    show this behaviour. There's little chance that they'll /ever/ learn...

    C.

  18. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Patrick wrote:

    > I've seen a number of messages saying that with Linux or Ubuntu virus
    >protection is not needed. However, my WinXP system was just trashed by
    >a trogen horse virus. Since I always use Verizon security suite with my
    >WinXP, I wonder if the virus came in through the Ubuntu system which did
    >not have a virus protection.


    Verizon Security Suite? What the heck is Verizon Security Suite?

    Oh, that is Verizon Security Suite. $6 a month for three users.
    That's 36 dollars a year, for 3 users. That's about half the price of
    Norton.

    I imagine Verizon is about maybe a little better than MS Who Cares - I
    mean One Care. And that's because I doubt anyone could be worse than
    Who Cares.

    Bitdefender or Kapersky (something like that). I hear that these are
    two of the best these days. I'm sure Norton and McCaffee will be back
    on top some day.



  19. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Todd wrote:

    > I mean One Care.


    Try saying "One Care" in a French accent! Sums up Windows users...

  20. Re: Virus Protection Not Needed?

    Todd wrote:

    > Oh, that is Verizon Security Suite. $6 a month for three users.
    > That's 36 dollars a year, for 3 users. That's about half the price
    > of Norton.


    The hotline for your math teacher can be found in the blue pages of your
    telephone directory under "Schools" ... ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

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