From: Lusotec on
RayLopez99 wrote:
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> I could pick any AV protected Windows PC at random and probably find
>> malware active on it. The oddity is finding one that isn't infected by
>> something.
> Nope. Not true. "could" sounds like metaphysics. something not
> detected by AV sw does not exist.

HA HA HA. All *new* malware is not detected by AV programs. Even the stats
you posted show tha tthe best AV finds only 70% of malware.

> I concede Linux is more secure "in theory", but "de facto" *with the
> proper AV s/w in place*, Windows is just as secure *for those people
> that are not clueless (i.e., not deliberately installing malware by
> mistake or otherwise)*.

History of malware proves you totally *wrong*. Windows has a history full of
malware that requires absolutely no user intervention. Windows *is* far more
insecure than GNU/Linux in theory, in fact, in reality, in history, in
everywhere except your head.

> Hence my second thread, about comparing apples with apples. Actually
> when you posed the question in your prior post I thought we were in
> that newer thread.

If you want to start a second thread the do so.


From: James Egan on

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:48:42 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)>

>While chip creep may only apply to socketed chips, I've seen chips,
>actually the pins, come unsoldered by hot/cold cycles. We had a real
>issue with that in the military in at one point.

From the keyboard of the world's leading googler who's been there and
done that before everyone else.


From: FromTheRafters on
"ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)> wrote in message
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> You need AV to guard against the off chance that you encounter a
>> virus.
> In Windows, yes, AV is absolutely necessary. Some people seem to be
> asserting that it is not necessary with Linux. Is that true?

It is needed in Linux to the same extent that it *should* be needed in
Windows. That is to say it would be needed to protect against the slight
chance that a *virus* could invade. If you discount exploit based
malware, most other malware could be evaded with policy. It is possible
for viruses to invade without either exploited software vulnerabilities
or lapse in strict adherence to policy.

From: FromTheRafters on
"ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)> wrote in message

> ...She never actually uses her computer.

Ahhh, the epitome of safe computing practices.

....but for security, it should be de-energized, encased in concrete, and
buried deep. :o)

From: FromTheRafters on
"RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)> wrote in message


But the bottom line is that AV vendors have an incentive to hype up
lack of security, and i've not seen it done, ergo,there's no problem
to hype.

Yes, but the existance of today's AV was born from the real need to be
able to detect *viruses*. The fact that it has become perverted into
what we see today does not negate that actual need (in *any* general
purpose computer running any OS). Yes, they expanded their role to guard
against threats that they should never have gotten the opportunity to
scan, they should have been excluded from the local environment by
policy. Users liked to use these scanners so that they could ignore
policy (my AV program will save me, that's what it's for). Enforcing
policy through software led to the concept of privilege escalation to
circumvent policy - and worms usually attack software vulnerabilities
that result in circumventing policy enforcement. Generally, (true) worms
make holes in the boundaries with which we try to enforce policy.