From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-148594-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874C51381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:44:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5070E09DE;
Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:44:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com (mail-vb0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A973FE07EC
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:44:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p14so1895945vbm.32
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=4GYA7Iu6K/0epAPQaRVg0Htg6lN8lyhO3/XjgrdbI+o=;
b=lu431kXJcGCh+BNj7B7aa9VdKgbm3LisphAbyGFDAhVr9T8YsPV7MvyqVXI2PodB1L
hBsUVu8iONJ7bWxlO505ngaY/j5HUhn7QKsurDZ/gI78nTTnzCKbRrLByRzkutTTdCby
zJ0DnFwXweEQukJ6/3XLgAVhS+F10EKFZfT5KZJcYkdJE+HIUt30p0IkWb2P4zpD4sYs
ZaDIneDxHykLxdJ48eeh5BxRwwI4GNGjiss+ZnvYjdnLXajsMCMSHYq/p519SAfoqMx2
8aXMrAwNx3/XOvxRJKLxbpSbOfVEcLyIApM2oyVV6u3gmj8F1013ofVUC5PZtx8vqTF2
HK1w==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.27.137 with SMTP id t9mr20160655vdg.36.1373661868906;
Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.116.72 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.116.72 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51E067D2.8030402@googlemail.com>
References: <51D728BA.4060906@gmail.com>
<51E030A5.5010504@taydin.org>
<51E067D2.8030402@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:44:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH_OBidR1e0Cv8H8WUogT2VANNzNOqMT5pWjPXqhjUU8KabuJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Linux viruses
From: shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d06eabce65c04e15693d1
X-Archives-Salt: 6983288e-b3f4-418b-b74d-45236142f8a8
X-Archives-Hash: b7dd07380a7aafdacbbfd7e7d254d8c2
--20cf307d06eabce65c04e15693d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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.
--20cf307d06eabce65c04e15693d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Jul 12, 2013 4:32 PM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" <<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:volkerarmin@googlemail.com">volkerarmin@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<=
br>
><br>
> Am 12.07.2013 18:36, schrieb Timur Aydin:<br>
> > On 7/5/2013 11:12 PM, Dale wrote:<br>
> >> I since did some googling and it seems I am right and he just=
thought I<br>
> >> was some know nothing guy he could sell some service too. =C2=
=A0Anyway, has<br>
> >> anything changed to make Linux more prone to viruses than it =
used to<br>
> >> be? =C2=A0I read a percentage somewhere that said like 99% of=
viruses are<br>
> >> windoze only. =C2=A0Is there a indisputable source of informa=
tion on this?<br>
> ><br>
> > Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, but it isn't so=
much<br>
> > more secure that only 1% of all viruses can attack it. Virus<br>
> > developers don't have a financial incentive to develop Linux =
viruses<br>
> > (not enough Linux users, most Linux users knowledgeable about<br>
> > computers, and moral reasons).<br>
> ><br>
> moral reasons... you just made my day....<br>
></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Yeah, that made me think back to a reddit AMA with a guy who=
ran a botnet and everyone kept asking him about morals. </p>
--20cf307d06eabce65c04e15693d1--