[gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
buying his comment. 

I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this? 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Davide De Prisco]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

Ahahahah...
Il giorno 05/lug/2013 22:13, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
> getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
> used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
> recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
> buying his comment.
>
> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
> how you interpreted my words!
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1463 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
> getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
> used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
> recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
> buying his comment.
>
> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?

There have absolutely been viruses and various root exploits for Linux
systems, but to say it is even 1% as many as Windows would probably be
a massive overstatement.

Not that Linux or Mac are necessarily inherently more secure than
Windows, but Windows (and software that runs on Windows) is by far the
biggest target for bad guys, and the most used by careless users.

On any operating system, proper maintenance with regard to security
updates, and smart behavior (don't run that EXE attachment the
Nigerian prince just sent you) will keep you safe. For people who
don't do that, Linux is typically set up more securely than Windows,
by default... but the person sitting at the keyboard is usually
capable of screwing it up more than any virus. :)

[gentoo-user] Re: Linux viruses

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-07-05, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son
>> is getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to
>> find a used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the
>> techie guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm
>> not recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we
>> was chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus
>> as windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I
>> wasn't buying his comment.
>>
>> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought
>> I was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway,
>> has anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used
>> to be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses
>> are windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on
>> this?
>
> There have absolutely been viruses and various root exploits for
> Linux systems, but to say it is even 1% as many as Windows would
> probably be a massive overstatement.
>
> Not that Linux or Mac are necessarily inherently more secure than
> Windows,

Well, I'm pretty sure that was the case for Linux for most of the past
20 years.  People who's opinions I trust tell me that Windows security
has vastly improved in the past few years.  Even so, a 90% reduction
in security issues in Windows still leaves them at least a factor of
10 worse that most all recent Linux distros that are installed and
updated with even minimal competence.

That said, even Linux has exploits.  Once upon a time about 12 years
ago, one of my Linux boxes got rooted.  That machine was still using
dial-up (no firewall).  It had an external modem with tx/rx LEDs, and
I always made sure the modem was sitting in plain site.

One day I noticed the tx/rx LEDs start flashing when there shouldn't
have been any network traffic.  I disconnected the phone line, and
after some investigation found a root-kit had been installed.  I
powered off the machine, signed up for DSL (which included a modem
with a router/firewall), wiped the disk, and reinstalled the OS.

Haven't had a problem since then...  [Famous last words.]

Never trust a modem/router/firewall without tx/rx LEDs.  Of course
these days there are so many devices on the network that are phoning
home to check for firmware updates, get TV schedule info, check the
weather, and report everything I do to the NSA that there's network
traffic 24/7 regardless of what I'm doing.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Send your questions to
                                  at               ``ASK ZIPPY'', Box 40474,
                              gmail.com            San Francisco, CA 94140,
                                                   USA

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 05 Jul 2013 22:46:10 Paul Hartman wrote:

> ... but the person sitting at the keyboard is usually capable of screwing
> it up more than any virus. :)

Hah! Tell me about it. :-(

-- 
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Randolph Maaßen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

On Jul 6, 2013 11:13 AM, "Peter Humphrey" <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
>
> On Friday 05 Jul 2013 22:46:10 Paul Hartman wrote:
>
> > ... but the person sitting at the keyboard is usually capable of
screwing
> > it up more than any virus. :)
>
> Hah! Tell me about it. :-(
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
What I did recently: format an USB drive. I was happily typing mkfs.vfat
/dev/sda1. ... why was this so fast? And why wasn't the usb device
blinking? FU! This was sda, so goodbye windows7 boot partiton... luky me

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 681 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Bruce Hill]

On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:12:27AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 05 Jul 2013 22:46:10 Paul Hartman wrote:
> 
> > ... but the person sitting at the keyboard is usually capable of screwing
> > it up more than any virus. :)
> 
> Hah! Tell me about it. :-(

Ack
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[William Kenworthy]

On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:
> 
> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
> getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
> used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
> recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
> buying his comment. 
> 
> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this? 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 
> 

food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in
use.  Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ...

I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than
self starting.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

William Kenworthy wrote:
> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:
>> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
>> getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
>> used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
>> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
>> recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
>> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
>> buying his comment. 
>>
>> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
>> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
>> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
>> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
>> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this? 
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
>>
> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in
> use.  Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ...
>
> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than
> self starting.
>
> BillK
>
>
>

Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
windoze installed on them at all. 

BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol 

I'm still trying to figure out what he thought he would accomplish tho. 
I can't get my head wrapped around that yet. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[the]

On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote:
> William Kenworthy wrote:
>> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:
>>> I had a interesting adventure the other day.  A friend of mine's son is
>>> getting ready to go to college.  Budget is tight so we went to find a
>>> used laptop for him.  I went into the local puter shop and the techie
>>> guy there had a interesting statement that makes me think I'm not
>>> recommending them for computer service to anyone else.  While we was
>>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
>>> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
>>> buying his comment.
>>>
>>> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
>>> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
>>> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
>>> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
>>> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
>> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in
>> use.  Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ...
>>
>> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than
>> self starting.
>>
>> BillK
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
> copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
> windoze installed on them at all.
>
> BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
> them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
> there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
> that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol

Perhaps it's easier to use strings?


-- 
Stop talking and start compiling.
Linux user #557897

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3209 bytes --]

On Saturday 06 Jul 2013 07:57:38 the wrote:
> On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote:
> > William Kenworthy wrote:
> >> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:

> >>> While we was
> >>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
> >>> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
> >>> buying his comment.

Well this is just FUD.  Linux and BSDs are much much less prone to virus 
infection due to their architecture and default authentication restrictions.
Also your average Linux user, well at least your average Linux desktop user is 
more clued up than the MSWindows equivalent.  With the advent of Linux to 
mobile devices (Android) this statement is no longer true.


> >> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
> >> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in
> >> use.  Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ...
> >> 
> >> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than
> >> self starting.
> >> 
> >> BillK
> > 
> > Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
> > copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
> > windoze installed on them at all.

I'm sure some poster in 2003/04 posted in this same list about a MSWindows 
malware running in Wine.  That's indication of good code as far as I'm 
concerned, because most MSWindows programs that I tried would fall over 
themselves in Wine!  LOL!


> > BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
> > them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
> > there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
> > that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol
> 
> Perhaps it's easier to use strings?

  hexdump -C <suspect_payload>

You may have to unzip it first, because a lot of malware is zipped to escape 
detection from some simpler anti-virus checkers.  You can also use dd and pipe 
it to an antivirus to see if it finds anything known.

All OS are susceptible to malware, but not all malware are viruses.  At least 
one virus has existed for Linux (in the 90s or early 00s), but it was patched 
overnight if I remember right.  Other than that I don't know of any programs 
which can be replicated on Linux machines.  I think this is because despite 
Lennart's efforts no two linux OS are exactly the same.  So, as the virus is 
trying to replicate itself it will fall down at the next box it tries to 
infect.

However, rogue add-ons in browsers, increasingly sophisticated JavaScripts, 
and HTML 5 with all its cross-domain/cross-site-request potential could wreck 
at least some of your data and steal your information, just as easily as the 
adjacent MSWindows box.  Oh, before I forget, did I mention Java?

Linux running on mobile devices is a different category because there is great 
uniformity of the OS across devices.  This is a big target for any malware 
writers and state actors who value their coding time:

  http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/android-security-hole/

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[shawn wilson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4419 bytes --]

I was present for a discussion about which is the most secure OS. I don't
remember the forum but the consensus was that the most secure OS is the one
you know. Anyone can wreck a system but not everyone has the ability to
maintain a system.

I'm not arguing that you can run Windows as tight as Linux (no SELinux,
tripwire costs $, etc). What I'm saying is if someone doesn't know Windows
they'll do more harm than good. (same Linux).

You can probably grep through a virus definition db and find an OS field.
Probably ClamAV is your best bet here (but any may work). There's also a
50+ gig torrent of all known viruses you can look for. You could also
figure out how to query vulns for the OS they're on (mitre or NIST) -
probably hard.

Reversing - as mentioned above, get a hex editor, and use strings. The
other option is that it could have debug symbols still.

Indicator lights is a piss poor way to see anything about what might be
running. It's like looking at the hdd light to see how much your computer
is processing.

Ps - the software you're talking about is Windows.
On Jul 6, 2013 5:22 AM, "Mick" <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 06 Jul 2013 07:57:38 the wrote:
> > On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote:
> > > William Kenworthy wrote:
> > >> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote:
>
> > >>> While we was
> > >>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as
> > >>> windoze and so is a Mac.  I think my laughing let him know I wasn't
> > >>> buying his comment.
>
> Well this is just FUD.  Linux and BSDs are much much less prone to virus
> infection due to their architecture and default authentication
> restrictions.
> Also your average Linux user, well at least your average Linux desktop
> user is
> more clued up than the MSWindows equivalent.  With the advent of Linux to
> mobile devices (Android) this statement is no longer true.
>
>
> > >> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up
> > >> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be
> in
> > >> use.  Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine
> ...
> > >>
> > >> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather
> than
> > >> self starting.
> > >>
> > >> BillK
> > >
> > > Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
> > > copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
> > > windoze installed on them at all.
>
> I'm sure some poster in 2003/04 posted in this same list about a MSWindows
> malware running in Wine.  That's indication of good code as far as I'm
> concerned, because most MSWindows programs that I tried would fall over
> themselves in Wine!  LOL!
>
>
> > > BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
> > > them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
> > > there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
> > > that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol
> >
> > Perhaps it's easier to use strings?
>
>   hexdump -C <suspect_payload>
>
> You may have to unzip it first, because a lot of malware is zipped to
> escape
> detection from some simpler anti-virus checkers.  You can also use dd and
> pipe
> it to an antivirus to see if it finds anything known.
>
> All OS are susceptible to malware, but not all malware are viruses.  At
> least
> one virus has existed for Linux (in the 90s or early 00s), but it was
> patched
> overnight if I remember right.  Other than that I don't know of any
> programs
> which can be replicated on Linux machines.  I think this is because despite
> Lennart's efforts no two linux OS are exactly the same.  So, as the virus
> is
> trying to replicate itself it will fall down at the next box it tries to
> infect.
>
> However, rogue add-ons in browsers, increasingly sophisticated JavaScripts,
> and HTML 5 with all its cross-domain/cross-site-request potential could
> wreck
> at least some of your data and steal your information, just as easily as
> the
> adjacent MSWindows box.  Oh, before I forget, did I mention Java?
>
> Linux running on mobile devices is a different category because there is
> great
> uniformity of the OS across devices.  This is a big target for any malware
> writers and state actors who value their coding time:
>
>   http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/android-security-hole/
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5350 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Alan McKinnon]

On 06/07/2013 00:21, Dale wrote:
> I'm still trying to figure out what he thought he would accomplish tho. 
> I can't get my head wrapped around that yet. 

That's easy to answer.

The fellow probably doesn't know much.

If you want a brilliant example, just go read a wide bunch of threads on
the Gentoo Forums. You will find some gems in there, you'll also find a
level of cluelessness that is hard to wrap your brains around, and the
noise to signal ratio is out the roof.

Fellows working in stores (often at low wages) are not any different.

Technically, he's not wrong - any OS is just as susceptible to viruses
as any other, you just have to get over the first hurdle which is
getting code to run. The overall design of Windows has historically made
this somewhat easy, and the overall design of Windows users made it
easier still.

Using Occam's Razor, I'd guess the fellow behind the counter is not too
different from fellows behind counters everywhere, and he's running on
one of these motivations:

1. He will punt what earns him more money (he's in sales after all)
2. He will defend the thing he sells (usually by talking down the
competition)
3. Just repeats some line he heard somewhere and doesn't really
understand the topic (but is convinced he does)



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Bruce Hill]

On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:50:40AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> Technically, he's not wrong - any OS is just as susceptible to viruses
> as any other, you just have to get over the first hurdle which is
> getting code to run. The overall design of Windows has historically made
> this somewhat easy, and the overall design of Windows users made it
> easier still.
> 
> Using Occam's Razor, I'd guess the fellow behind the counter is not too
> different from fellows behind counters everywhere, and he's running on
> one of these motivations:
> 
> 1. He will punt what earns him more money (he's in sales after all)
> 2. He will defend the thing he sells (usually by talking down the
> competition)
> 3. Just repeats some line he heard somewhere and doesn't really
> understand the topic (but is convinced he does)

Ack!

I built my first PC in 1984, and have worked on a couple since. I could write
a book on all the FUD I've heard since then. People come into my computer
shop and tell me what "they" told them all the time. The bottom line of WHY
"they" tell "them" such things is all ignorance. Without the "business model"
that Bill Gates created, there would be no "computer repair shop industry"
such as we have now. Big Ears Billy is my freeeeend.  ;-)

Mickey$oft has purposed to create millions of ignorant computer users who will
buy any piece of garbage software they can click and install with their index
finger. Prime example:

http://www.speedtest.net/

Running a Windoze OS you'll find at least 3 pieces of software advertised
before the real test loads on your computer. That's on a Windoze box which
doesn't allow cookies or tracking software of any kind. On a Gentoo box,
running Firefox 22.0, NONE of those "software offers" loaded at all.

Since 2003 the only customer of mine who got a virus/trojan/worm/etc is the
ONE college student who turned off the software his Mom bought from me when it
kept him from going to a certain website. He now has a password on the A/V
software known only to me, and hasn't had a problem since. NB: I only sell the
best A/V software on the market, which hasn't missed a virus in the wild since
it's inception.

Many people, like the boy Dale talked to, make their living off virii. Mine is
made off of referrals. "They" make more money than I, but I sleep better.
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-491-8613
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.

Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which 
one this is?

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[the]

On 07/07/13 20:07, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
>> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
>
> Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
> one this is?

I'm curious why would anybody need one?


-- 
Stop talking and start compiling.
Linux user #557897

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 699 bytes --]

On Sunday 07 Jul 2013 17:19:13 the wrote:
> On 07/07/13 20:07, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> >> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
> >> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
> > 
> > Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
> > one this is?
> 
> I'm curious why would anybody need one?

Because one may need to:

1. Scan MSWindows drives and infected machines.
2. Avoid forwarding viruses and malware in general, to MSWindows users.
3. Check MSWindows executables.
4. Other uses that MSWindows devs/users may know of.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-07 12:19 PM, the <the.guard@mail.ru> wrote:
> On 07/07/13 20:07, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
>> wrote:
>>> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
>>> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
>>
>> Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
>> one this is?
>
> I'm curious why would anybody need one?

Obviously you aren't responsible for managing lots of Windows 
Workstations operated by average Windows users.

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Bruce Hill]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 01:15:35PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-07 12:19 PM, the <the.guard@mail.ru> wrote:
> > On 07/07/13 20:07, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >> On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
> >>> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
> >>
> >> Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
> >> one this is?
> >
> > I'm curious why would anybody need one?
> 
> Obviously you aren't responsible for managing lots of Windows 
> Workstations operated by average Windows users.

ack
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Bruce Hill]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> > NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
> > missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
> 
> Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which 
> one this is?

http://www.eset.com/us/home/whyeset/compare/
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]

On Jul 8, 2013 1:05 AM, "Bruce Hill" <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
wrote:
> > > NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
> > > missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
> >
> > Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
> > one this is?
>
> http://www.eset.com/us/home/whyeset/compare/

Oh. My. Goodness! ESET! I *love* that piece of gold :-)

In fact, I'm still having the glow from the satisfaction of successfully
convincing the management to replace the previous p.o.s. that goes by the
name of "SEP", with this wonderful antivirus.

The first week, ESET unearthed more than 1'000 threats (throughout the
company) that SEP had turned a blind eye to. It's really a mystery how SEP
ever got crowned with any "Good" attributes.

Granted, the "Business" version has much more options than one can shake a
stick at, but for control-happy BOFHs, ESET is a godsend, a breath of fresh
air compared to the CPU-guzzling ineffective p.o.s. called SEP.

(sorry for the tangential offtopicness, I'm just so very glad to see a
fellow ESET-believer ;-) ).

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1755 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Alecks Gates]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2013 1:05 AM, "Bruce Hill" <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> > On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
>> > > missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
>> >
>> > Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
>> > one this is?
>>
>> http://www.eset.com/us/home/whyeset/compare/
>
> Oh. My. Goodness! ESET! I *love* that piece of gold :-)
>
> In fact, I'm still having the glow from the satisfaction of successfully
> convincing the management to replace the previous p.o.s. that goes by the
> name of "SEP", with this wonderful antivirus.
>
> The first week, ESET unearthed more than 1'000 threats (throughout the
> company) that SEP had turned a blind eye to. It's really a mystery how SEP
> ever got crowned with any "Good" attributes.
>
> Granted, the "Business" version has much more options than one can shake a
> stick at, but for control-happy BOFHs, ESET is a godsend, a breath of fresh
> air compared to the CPU-guzzling ineffective p.o.s. called SEP.
>
> (sorry for the tangential offtopicness, I'm just so very glad to see a
> fellow ESET-believer ;-) ).
>
> Rgds,
> --

I love it as well, I even used their Linux-gateway scanner to scan
network traffic.  I know there are other free ways to do that, but
ESET had impressed me enough by then.

-- 
Alecks Gates

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Bruce Hill]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:36:38AM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> 
> Oh. My. Goodness! ESET! I *love* that piece of gold :-)
> 
> In fact, I'm still having the glow from the satisfaction of successfully
> convincing the management to replace the previous p.o.s. that goes by the
> name of "SEP", with this wonderful antivirus.
> 
> The first week, ESET unearthed more than 1'000 threats (throughout the
> company) that SEP had turned a blind eye to. It's really a mystery how SEP
> ever got crowned with any "Good" attributes.
> 
> Granted, the "Business" version has much more options than one can shake a
> stick at, but for control-happy BOFHs, ESET is a godsend, a breath of fresh
> air compared to the CPU-guzzling ineffective p.o.s. called SEP.
> 
> (sorry for the tangential offtopicness, I'm just so very glad to see a
> fellow ESET-believer ;-) ).

A good Linux friend who works with IBM Netherlands as a Linux/FOSS expert told
me of ESET in 2003. He was my Slackware mentor (my distro before Gentoo). He
implemented ESET on the Windows clients of one of his accounts, Green Peace.

I have only had one customer since 2003 get infected using ESET, and that was
because he turned it off.

It has such a small footprint, and does a great job. It's got a lot of other
nice tools in the Smart Security suite, such as the ability to track your
stolen laptop if you set it up. But enough on this Gentoo list...
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-07 2:04 PM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 2013-07-06 8:12 AM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
>>> NB: I only sell the best A/V software on the market, which hasn't
>>> missed a virus in the  wild since it's inception.
>>
>> Not to start a flamewar on which is the best AV, but I'm curious which
>> one this is?
>
> http://www.eset.com/us/home/whyeset/compare/

Thought so...

Been using the Enterprise version since about 2002 (NOD32 version 2) and 
couldn't be happier.

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:21:25PM -0500, Dale wrote

> Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
> copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
> windoze installed on them at all. 
> 
> BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
> them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
> there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
> that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol

  The bad guys go after the "low hanging fruit", i.e. the easiest
targets.  Years ago, it was Internet Explorer.  This also included
Outlook and Outlook Express, which were glorified IE frontends.  There
were many "drive-by-downloads", thanks to Active-X (aka "Active-Hacks").

  MS has gotten its act together on IE, so the bad guys are now going
after other stuff.  The "other stuff" is cross-platform stuff like Java
and Javascript and Adobe Acrobat and Flash (known affectionately as
"Schlockwave Trash").  So yes... it can happen here.

  I've been Java-free for years.  I use Noscript and Flashblock on
Firefox.  I keep Opera around for those sites that don't work on
Firefox.  I also use mupdf instead of the bloated Acrobat Reader
monstrosity.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:21:25PM -0500, Dale wrote
>
>> Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
>> copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
>> windoze installed on them at all. 
>>
>> BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
>> them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
>> there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
>> that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol
>   The bad guys go after the "low hanging fruit", i.e. the easiest
> targets.  Years ago, it was Internet Explorer.  This also included
> Outlook and Outlook Express, which were glorified IE frontends.  There
> were many "drive-by-downloads", thanks to Active-X (aka "Active-Hacks").
>
>   MS has gotten its act together on IE, so the bad guys are now going
> after other stuff.  The "other stuff" is cross-platform stuff like Java
> and Javascript and Adobe Acrobat and Flash (known affectionately as
> "Schlockwave Trash").  So yes... it can happen here.
>
>   I've been Java-free for years.  I use Noscript and Flashblock on
> Firefox.  I keep Opera around for those sites that don't work on
> Firefox.  I also use mupdf instead of the bloated Acrobat Reader
> monstrosity.
>


Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
java/javascript/flash?  Or would the infection at the least be limited
to that user? 

How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

[gentoo-user] Re: Linux viruses

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-07-08, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
> java/javascript/flash?

Possibly.  It would require use of a privledge-escalation exploit
(which have been found in the past for Linux).

> Or would the infection at the least be limited to that user?

Usually.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Vote for ME -- I'm
                                  at               well-tapered, half-cocked,
                              gmail.com            ill-conceived and
                                                   TAX-DEFERRED!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Alan McKinnon]

On 08/07/2013 15:24, Dale wrote:
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:21:25PM -0500, Dale wrote
>>
>>> Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
>>> copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
>>> windoze installed on them at all. 
>>>
>>> BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
>>> them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
>>> there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
>>> that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol
>>   The bad guys go after the "low hanging fruit", i.e. the easiest
>> targets.  Years ago, it was Internet Explorer.  This also included
>> Outlook and Outlook Express, which were glorified IE frontends.  There
>> were many "drive-by-downloads", thanks to Active-X (aka "Active-Hacks").
>>
>>   MS has gotten its act together on IE, so the bad guys are now going
>> after other stuff.  The "other stuff" is cross-platform stuff like Java
>> and Javascript and Adobe Acrobat and Flash (known affectionately as
>> "Schlockwave Trash").  So yes... it can happen here.
>>
>>   I've been Java-free for years.  I use Noscript and Flashblock on
>> Firefox.  I keep Opera around for those sites that don't work on
>> Firefox.  I also use mupdf instead of the bloated Acrobat Reader
>> monstrosity.
>>
> 
> 
> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
> java/javascript/flash?  

Yes. If you can get the payload to run, then that code will run and will
do whatever the environment it is in will let it do.

> Or would the infection at the least be limited
> to that user? 

That's the normal case, but by no means the only one.

If you have sudoers set up to run any command as root without using a
password, well then....

> 
> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse? 


I think you need to gain a deeper understanding of how computer software
works Dale. You are asking black/white questions, and the world just is
not like that. It's all grey.

These questions do not have simple answers. Windows well-deserved it's
bad rep from many years ago - that came not from bad security or
loopholes but more from the simple fact that early Windows had no
security to speak of. It wasn't poor locks, there just wasn't a lock,
not a door ... oh stuff it there wasn't even a wall to put the door in
for many years!

Things have vastly improved now and Windows in the hands of someone with
clue rates about the same as (more-or-less conventional) Linux in the
hands of someone with clue.

Lastly, gaining root permissions is no longer the holy grail it used to
be. Nowadays first prize is ability to send mail through your mail
accounts, access your browsing history, and get into your password
wallet. All of which by their very nature, MUST be accessible to the
user's account.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 15:24, Dale wrote:
>> Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:21:25PM -0500, Dale wrote
>>>
>>>> Well, no Wine here.  So that won't happen.  Actually, I don't have a
>>>> copy of windoze here at all.  Neither of my two rigs have ever had
>>>> windoze installed on them at all. 
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open
>>>> them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in
>>>> there.  Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion
>>>> that is human readable.  They sent it and I'm nosy that way.  lol
>>>   The bad guys go after the "low hanging fruit", i.e. the easiest
>>> targets.  Years ago, it was Internet Explorer.  This also included
>>> Outlook and Outlook Express, which were glorified IE frontends.  There
>>> were many "drive-by-downloads", thanks to Active-X (aka "Active-Hacks").
>>>
>>>   MS has gotten its act together on IE, so the bad guys are now going
>>> after other stuff.  The "other stuff" is cross-platform stuff like Java
>>> and Javascript and Adobe Acrobat and Flash (known affectionately as
>>> "Schlockwave Trash").  So yes... it can happen here.
>>>
>>>   I've been Java-free for years.  I use Noscript and Flashblock on
>>> Firefox.  I keep Opera around for those sites that don't work on
>>> Firefox.  I also use mupdf instead of the bloated Acrobat Reader
>>> monstrosity.
>>>
>>
>> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
>> java/javascript/flash?  
> Yes. If you can get the payload to run, then that code will run and will
> do whatever the environment it is in will let it do.
>
>> Or would the infection at the least be limited
>> to that user? 
> That's the normal case, but by no means the only one.
>
> If you have sudoers set up to run any command as root without using a
> password, well then....
>
>> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse? 
>
> I think you need to gain a deeper understanding of how computer software
> works Dale. You are asking black/white questions, and the world just is
> not like that. It's all grey.
>
> These questions do not have simple answers. Windows well-deserved it's
> bad rep from many years ago - that came not from bad security or
> loopholes but more from the simple fact that early Windows had no
> security to speak of. It wasn't poor locks, there just wasn't a lock,
> not a door ... oh stuff it there wasn't even a wall to put the door in
> for many years!
>
> Things have vastly improved now and Windows in the hands of someone with
> clue rates about the same as (more-or-less conventional) Linux in the
> hands of someone with clue.
>
> Lastly, gaining root permissions is no longer the holy grail it used to
> be. Nowadays first prize is ability to send mail through your mail
> accounts, access your browsing history, and get into your password
> wallet. All of which by their very nature, MUST be accessible to the
> user's account.
>
>

I'm getting there Alan.  I'm always learning something.  It's retaining
it that is the issue.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Paul Hartman]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
> java/javascript/flash?  Or would the infection at the least be limited
> to that user?

I think how they typically work, on any OS, is they exploit a bug in
the browser (or a browser plug-in) to run code on your local machine,
and then that code exploits the operating system in order to get
root-level privileges. After it has that, the possibilities are
endless...

There's nothing special about Linux that would make that scenario play
out any better than it does on Windows, but in reality the number of
exploits found for Windows has been greater, and the number of Linux
web browser users is far fewer, so it's pretty rare to see web pages
that target Linux exploits (but I do read about them from time to
time).

I personally use Firefox with RequestPolicy, NoScript and Adblock
Plus. That still won't protect me from a bug in Firefox itself. I
suppose if I really wanted to be paranoid I would run it in a virtual
machine (but, hey, those can be exploited, too). At some point, you
have to just go with it and hope for the best. Either that or turn off
the computer. :)

> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse?

HTML5 is already here and you're probably already using it. :) The
biggest benefit to using "anything but Flash" is the idea that the
code is not in Adobe's hands and that the community would identify and
fix bugs sooner. But that's not guaranteed to be the case.

A web browser is perhaps the most complicated piece of software most
of us will ever run on our computers, and there's a lot of room for
mistakes to happen in those millions of lines of code. Anything can
happen.

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
>> java/javascript/flash?  Or would the infection at the least be limited
>> to that user?
> I think how they typically work, on any OS, is they exploit a bug in
> the browser (or a browser plug-in) to run code on your local machine,
> and then that code exploits the operating system in order to get
> root-level privileges. After it has that, the possibilities are
> endless...
>
> There's nothing special about Linux that would make that scenario play
> out any better than it does on Windows, but in reality the number of
> exploits found for Windows has been greater, and the number of Linux
> web browser users is far fewer, so it's pretty rare to see web pages
> that target Linux exploits (but I do read about them from time to
> time).
>
> I personally use Firefox with RequestPolicy, NoScript and Adblock
> Plus. That still won't protect me from a bug in Firefox itself. I
> suppose if I really wanted to be paranoid I would run it in a virtual
> machine (but, hey, those can be exploited, too). At some point, you
> have to just go with it and hope for the best. Either that or turn off
> the computer. :)
>

That's my thinking to but also see my reply to Walter.  I use Linux for
several reasons and security is one of them.  Linux is more security
oriented and faster with fixes be it a browser or some other package. 
Gentoo works with upstream to get serious issues fixed pretty fast. 


>> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse?
> HTML5 is already here and you're probably already using it. :) The
> biggest benefit to using "anything but Flash" is the idea that the
> code is not in Adobe's hands and that the community would identify and
> fix bugs sooner. But that's not guaranteed to be the case.
>
> A web browser is perhaps the most complicated piece of software most
> of us will ever run on our computers, and there's a lot of room for
> mistakes to happen in those millions of lines of code. Anything can
> happen.
>
> .
>

I have opted in for html5 on youtube.  I think I also have a plugin that
enables html5 as well when available.  I have one for https as well. 
Given this NSA mess, may help a little anyway.  O_O

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:24:03AM -0500, Dale wrote

> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
> java/javascript/flash?

  There are two levels of "infection"...

1) One-off execution of bad stuff when you visit a web page.

2) A more permanent infection that survives restarting the web browser,
and rebooting the machine.  But that would need to be linux executable.

> Or would the infection at the least be limited to that user?

  Usually, unless they find a privilege escalation hole.  Then again,
it's the user-info (bank login and password, credit card number, etc)
that's really profitable for organized crime.

> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse?

  If/when it results in the end of Flash, that's an improvement.  The
thing I worry about is that anything "powerful enough" can be (ab)used.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 08:24:03AM -0500, Dale wrote
>
>> Questions.  Can a virus infect the OS when running on Linux through
>> java/javascript/flash?
>   There are two levels of "infection"...
>
> 1) One-off execution of bad stuff when you visit a web page.
>
> 2) A more permanent infection that survives restarting the web browser,
> and rebooting the machine.  But that would need to be linux executable.


OK.  I do banking online.  I also pay my bills online along with social
sites as well.  I use Lastpass so that I can have some really REALLY
funky passwords.  I think I am one of few that has not had his facebook
hacked.  Anyway, I run Gentoo which is known here.  I use
Firefox/Seamonkey as my web browser.  So next question sort of takes us
back to my point with the knucklehead in the store.  Am I safer, much
safer, using Linux over windoze?  That answer would take into account
the fact that most virus/nasty code is written for windoze and not Linux
but also that Linux is just built with security in mind.  I belive that
I am much safer with Linux myself.  Just a rough example of what some
passwords look like for me:

5u9YU7335cb29hPE

I don't actually use that as a password so no need in some script kiddy
trying it.  LOL


>> Or would the infection at the least be limited to that user?
>   Usually, unless they find a privilege escalation hole.  Then again,
> it's the user-info (bank login and password, credit card number, etc)
> that's really profitable for organized crime.

I can certainly agree with that.  I have a few people that use windoze
and refuse to even think about ordering online, banking or anything that
requires financial type info.  If they are not going to keep their stuff
up to date, may be a good idea.  These are the same folks that don't
update anti-virus and such too.  :/


>
>> How is html5 going to affect this?  Better or worse?
>   If/when it results in the end of Flash, that's an improvement.  The
> thing I worry about is that anything "powerful enough" can be (ab)used.
>

I was hoping if they was going to all the trouble on creating this that
it was going to do some sort of good and improve security.  I don't mean
just for Linux folks either.  For the record, I use https everywhere and
I think I have a similar thing for html5 too.  I know I opted in for
youtube. 

Thanks for the answers.  I think you see where I am going with this.  I
still laugh when I think about what that guy said tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:41:21PM -0500, Dale wrote

> OK.  I do banking online.  I also pay my bills online along with social
> sites as well.  I use Lastpass so that I can have some really REALLY
> funky passwords.  I think I am one of few that has not had his facebook
> hacked.  Anyway, I run Gentoo which is known here.  I use
> Firefox/Seamonkey as my web browser.  So next question sort of takes us
> back to my point with the knucklehead in the store.  Am I safer, much
> safer, using Linux over windoze?  That answer would take into account
> the fact that most virus/nasty code is written for windoze and not Linux
> but also that Linux is just built with security in mind.  I belive that
> I am much safer with Linux myself.

  You are safer overall.  Just watch out for XSS (cross-site-scripting),
java, Flash, and acrobat exploits.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:41:21PM -0500, Dale wrote
>
>> OK.  I do banking online.  I also pay my bills online along with social
>> sites as well.  I use Lastpass so that I can have some really REALLY
>> funky passwords.  I think I am one of few that has not had his facebook
>> hacked.  Anyway, I run Gentoo which is known here.  I use
>> Firefox/Seamonkey as my web browser.  So next question sort of takes us
>> back to my point with the knucklehead in the store.  Am I safer, much
>> safer, using Linux over windoze?  That answer would take into account
>> the fact that most virus/nasty code is written for windoze and not Linux
>> but also that Linux is just built with security in mind.  I belive that
>> I am much safer with Linux myself.
>   You are safer overall.  Just watch out for XSS (cross-site-scripting),
> java, Flash, and acrobat exploits.
>


That's my thinking but wanted a second opinion.  So far, I have never
had anything hacked.  That includes social sites, banking and other
financial stuff, email and other password protected stuff.  I keep
everything updated and use browsers that are popular and updated
frequently.  I think Lastpass helps too.  I have one good password and
it remember the really hard ones.  So far, it works well. 

Thanks for the second opinion.  It ended up like I thought.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Davide De Prisco]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1867 bytes --]

If you use a open source system probably you want that the community help
you with your security problems and you can help the community with bug
finder. Linux is not perfect but it's the best system that the community
can write. The community want you.
Il giorno 10/lug/2013 06:13, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:41:21PM -0500, Dale wrote
> >
> >> OK.  I do banking online.  I also pay my bills online along with social
> >> sites as well.  I use Lastpass so that I can have some really REALLY
> >> funky passwords.  I think I am one of few that has not had his facebook
> >> hacked.  Anyway, I run Gentoo which is known here.  I use
> >> Firefox/Seamonkey as my web browser.  So next question sort of takes us
> >> back to my point with the knucklehead in the store.  Am I safer, much
> >> safer, using Linux over windoze?  That answer would take into account
> >> the fact that most virus/nasty code is written for windoze and not Linux
> >> but also that Linux is just built with security in mind.  I belive that
> >> I am much safer with Linux myself.
> >   You are safer overall.  Just watch out for XSS (cross-site-scripting),
> > java, Flash, and acrobat exploits.
> >
>
>
> That's my thinking but wanted a second opinion.  So far, I have never
> had anything hacked.  That includes social sites, banking and other
> financial stuff, email and other password protected stuff.  I keep
> everything updated and use browsers that are popular and updated
> frequently.  I think Lastpass helps too.  I have one good password and
> it remember the really hard ones.  So far, it works well.
>
> Thanks for the second opinion.  It ended up like I thought.  ;-)
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
> how you interpreted my words!
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2308 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Dale]

Davide De Prisco wrote:
>
> If you use a open source system probably you want that the community
> help you with your security problems and you can help the community
> with bug finder. Linux is not perfect but it's the best system that
> the community can write. The community want you.
>

I do that already.  I generally ask here first but if I find a bug, I
report it.  Sometimes finding the person to report it to can be
interesting but I help where I can.  I been using Linux for over a
decade now. 

I'm not much but I do what I can.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Timur Aydin]

On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote:
> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?

Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so much more 
secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus developers don't 
have a financial incentive to develop Linux viruses (not enough Linux 
users, most Linux users knowledgeable about computers, and moral reasons).

-- 
Timur Aydin

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am 12.07.2013 18:36, schrieb Timur Aydin:
> On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote:
>> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
>> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
>> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
>> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
>> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?
>
> Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so much
> more secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus
> developers don't have a financial incentive to develop Linux viruses
> (not enough Linux users, most Linux users knowledgeable about
> computers, and moral reasons).
>
moral reasons... you just made my day....

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses

[shawn wilson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

On Jul 12, 2013 4:32 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> Am 12.07.2013 18:36, schrieb Timur Aydin:
> > On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just thought I
> >> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too.  Anyway, has
> >> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it used to
> >> be?  I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of viruses are
> >> windoze only.  Is there a indisputable source of information on this?
> >
> > Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so much
> > more secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus
> > developers don't have a financial incentive to develop Linux viruses
> > (not enough Linux users, most Linux users knowledgeable about
> > computers, and moral reasons).
> >
> moral reasons... you just made my day....
>

Yeah, that made me think back to a reddit AMA with a guy who ran a botnet
and everyone kept asking him about morals.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1333 bytes --]