Malware found in Gnome screensaver
in [Linux Help]
|
Prev: Self Exam Engine Training - Lotus Certification | Lotus Questions and Answers
Next: I need help with an ancient DOS problem
From: Mike Jones on 12 Dec 2009 10:23 Responding to MarcB: > SM wrote: > >> 2009-12-11, Vahis skribis: >>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver-for- > ubuntu.html >> >> Installing software Windows-style yields Windows-style results. >> > So this leads to the conclusion that linux is not very much safer than > windows. If you follow propogated M$ FUD output that is. So, some end users installed software from an online resource not famous for it's software integrity checking, and something went wrong. All that does is highlight that sloppy administration leads to problems. Thats not a Linux problem, its an admin problem. As always, Linux is as secure as it's admin makes it, or as insecure as it's admin makes it, while Windows continues to be a virus magnet and the same old rehashed maleware platform it always has been. The key difference is that no matter how hard you try, and how much money you spend trying to secure Windows, failure is built in at the root, whereas Linux requires deliberate action to compromise what is otherwise still a rock solid and well secure(able) OS. FWIW, what started out as a joke does seem to be manifesting into a reality though, as clicky-bot "Do it for me" Windows migrants do the same dumb things with (typically Ubuntu) Linux as they did with Windows. You can almost hear the cry of all those Linux developers, "Oh noes! Look what they did to my dream!" Score to date (recent), Linux (theoretical) virus problems = possibly two, Windows, more than you can count, daily. Effects? Linux plus dumb admin = some, occassionally, with Windows, many, often, and ongoing. IOW, consider your assumptions challenged. ;) -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: MarcB on 12 Dec 2009 14:19 Mike Jones wrote: > Responding to MarcB: > >> SM wrote: >> >>> 2009-12-11, Vahis skribis: >>>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver- for- >> ubuntu.html >>> >>> Installing software Windows-style yields Windows-style results. >>> >> So this leads to the conclusion that linux is not very much safer than >> windows. > > > If you follow propogated M$ FUD output that is. > > So, some end users installed software from an online resource not famous > for it's software integrity checking, and something went wrong. All that > does is highlight that sloppy administration leads to problems. Thats not > a Linux problem, its an admin problem. > > As always, Linux is as secure as it's admin makes it, or as insecure as > it's admin makes it, while Windows continues to be a virus magnet and the > same old rehashed maleware platform it always has been. > > The key difference is that no matter how hard you try, and how much money > you spend trying to secure Windows, failure is built in at the root, > whereas Linux requires deliberate action to compromise what is otherwise > still a rock solid and well secure(able) OS. > > FWIW, what started out as a joke does seem to be manifesting into a > reality though, as clicky-bot "Do it for me" Windows migrants do the same > dumb things with (typically Ubuntu) Linux as they did with Windows. You > can almost hear the cry of all those Linux developers, "Oh noes! Look > what they did to my dream!" > > Score to date (recent), Linux (theoretical) virus problems = possibly > two, Windows, more than you can count, daily. Effects? Linux plus dumb > admin = some, occassionally, with Windows, many, often, and ongoing. > > IOW, consider your assumptions challenged. ;) > My post was in no way ment as linux bashing, If it looks like that, I am sorry for that but English is not my native language, so I'm glad this post did not end up in a flame war. It was just the feeling I had when reading the malware post like "Oh no, the same thing is now propagating to linux". I changed to Linux just to get rid of the virus/malware and because I know linux from my work at a telecom operator (almost all telephone exchanges of major manufaxtureres like Alcatel and Avaya run on linux) I am still experiencing the virus and malware hell with my daughters laptop. She clicks on everything that comes across and each few months I need to reload a disc image because her PC slows down to a level that makes it unusable. -- MarcB
From: Mike Jones on 12 Dec 2009 16:50 Responding to MarcB: > Mike Jones wrote: > >> Responding to MarcB: >> >>> SM wrote: >>> >>>> 2009-12-11, Vahis skribis: >>>>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver- > for- >>> ubuntu.html >>>> >>>> Installing software Windows-style yields Windows-style results. >>>> >>> So this leads to the conclusion that linux is not very much safer > than >>> windows. >> >> >> If you follow propogated M$ FUD output that is. >> >> So, some end users installed software from an online resource not > famous >> for it's software integrity checking, and something went wrong. All > that >> does is highlight that sloppy administration leads to problems. Thats > not >> a Linux problem, its an admin problem. >> >> As always, Linux is as secure as it's admin makes it, or as insecure > as >> it's admin makes it, while Windows continues to be a virus magnet and > the >> same old rehashed maleware platform it always has been. >> >> The key difference is that no matter how hard you try, and how much > money >> you spend trying to secure Windows, failure is built in at the root, >> whereas Linux requires deliberate action to compromise what is > otherwise >> still a rock solid and well secure(able) OS. >> >> FWIW, what started out as a joke does seem to be manifesting into a >> reality though, as clicky-bot "Do it for me" Windows migrants do the > same >> dumb things with (typically Ubuntu) Linux as they did with Windows. > You >> can almost hear the cry of all those Linux developers, "Oh noes! Look >> what they did to my dream!" >> >> Score to date (recent), Linux (theoretical) virus problems = possibly >> two, Windows, more than you can count, daily. Effects? Linux plus dumb >> admin = some, occassionally, with Windows, many, often, and ongoing. >> >> IOW, consider your assumptions challenged. ;) >> > My post was in no way ment as linux bashing, If it looks like that, I am > sorry for that but English is not my native language, so I'm glad this > post did not end up in a flame war. It was just the feeling I had when > reading the malware post like "Oh no, the same thing is now propagating > to linux". > > I changed to Linux just to get rid of the virus/malware and because I > know linux from my work at a telecom operator (almost all telephone > exchanges of major manufaxtureres like Alcatel and Avaya run on linux) > > I am still experiencing the virus and malware hell with my daughters > laptop. She clicks on everything that comes across and each few months I > need to reload a disc image because her PC slows down to a level that > makes it unusable. No flames sought or desired. FWIW, while that repeated virus infestation problem is occuring, you have no idea just what is being done to or with your daughter's laptop. It may be being used as a relay for any kind of illegal stuff, and you and her names will be permanently in many security databases as a result as suspects as a result. This is something that constantly amazes me about the average click'n'pray WinBot, that they consider malware to be nothing more than a computer version of house dust that just needs vacuuming up every so often when it becomes a problem too large to ignore. Each and every infestation is one too many, and you will have no idea what its actually doing on that internet connected machine your daughter types all kinds of details into about herself, her friends, and her family. The fact she collects so much, so fast, so often, should be ringing alarm bells for you, surely? Just what kind of internet resources is she and\or her peer group connecting to to get hit so often and so much? Can you see what I'm looking at here? -- *=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ *=( For all your UK news needs.
From: Jasen Betts on 13 Dec 2009 05:20 On 2009-12-12, MarcB <mbbs(a)telenet.be> wrote: > SM wrote: > >> 2009-12-11, Vahis skribis: >>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver-for- > ubuntu.html >> >> Installing software Windows-style yields Windows-style results. >> > So this leads to the conclusion that linux is not very much safer than > windows. If in windows people only install SW from trusted sources, > there is no malware or virus problem either. with the notable exception of "0 day exploits" but the same applies to linux > Linux virusses or malware cannot access the system itself without root > permissions, but they have access to the home directory where > user data is stored, and this user data may contain usefull info > for criminals to enable them to do identity theft things. > I dumped windows for some time now, but if I read this, it seems > that the only additional linux security perimeter is the trusted repo's > from the distro itself, and more things like SELINUX which is too > complex to configure for average PC users. Ubuntu ships with selinux installed, I didn't know it was there until I wanted to create a script to open a custom email client to mail a PDF when the user prints something.
From: Phil Gilmer on 12 Dec 2009 08:19
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. No one and nothing can prevent you from getting malware when you explicitly install it. What was done here was social engineering where you were tricked into installing it. What Linux does protect you from (and Windows doesn't, at least by default) is to protect you from software that you DIDN'T install. Because you a) don't normally run with elevated privileges and b) don't run Windows, you are safer from malware than are folks who do. Nothing will help if you don't know what it is you install. MarcB wrote: > > SM wrote: > >> 2009-12-11, Vahis skribis: >>> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/malware-found-in-screensaver-for- > ubuntu.html >> Installing software Windows-style yields Windows-style results. >> > So this leads to the conclusion that linux is not very much safer than > windows. If in windows people only install SW from trusted sources, > there is no malware or virus problem either. > Linux virusses or malware cannot access the system itself without root > permissions, but they have access to the home directory where > user data is stored, and this user data may contain usefull info > for criminals to enable them to do identity theft things. > > I dumped windows for some time now, but if I read this, it seems > that the only additional linux security perimeter is the trusted repo's > from the distro itself, and more things like SELINUX which is too > complex to configure for average PC users. |