Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: Peter Köhlmann on 27 Mar 2010 05:17 FromTheRafters wrote: > "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message > news:hoht4i$t8f$00$1(a)news.t-online.com... >> ToolPackinMama wrote: >> >>> On 3/26/2010 3:43 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >>>> FromTheRafters wrote: >>> >>>>> http://vx.netlux.org/lib/afc08.html >>>>> >>>>> Just read the intro - the rest is considerably beyond you. >>>> >>>> Well, you have understood obviously *nothing* of it >>> >>> LOL! I love this quote: >>> >>> << We don't want to leave the impression that only the weak and >>> unprotected users of personal computers have been attacked in this >>> fashion. In fact, there is no question that several large computer >>> companies have been successfully attacked, and that viruses have been >>> spread throughout their timesharing systems, even where the most >>> stringent protection is provided. >> >> >> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" idiotic claims? >> In fact, it is a quite damning assessment of windows "capabilities" to >> get >> infected, even when the best "protection" is used > > The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were > probably on Unix systems Hilarious >> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware... > > *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group and > talking about *viruses*. Malware encompasses viruses, too ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more than idiotic bullshit noted >> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted >> and how it attaches >> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing > > Attaches itself to some vector?? > > Sheesh! Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives the next boot? It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in the filesystem, whatever) to be present then > Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus as > you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your chances > of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds > with one stone. Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense -- Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
From: Lusotec on 27 Mar 2010 06:28 FromTheRafters wrote: > Some distros even had the console mode in a distinct color so that a > user wouldn't forget he or she was logged as root. For example, on Mandriva, when logging in to a X session as root the background defaults to bright red. It makes it hard to even look at the screen. :) Regards.
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 14:11 On Friday 26 March 2010 17:47 ToolPackinMama wrote: > Well, I play a couple of games, and getting my games to run in Linux > would be a nightmare for me. > > Gaming is 90% of what I do with my computer. I'm sorry that you guys outside of linux.advocacy are being pestered by posts which should really be confined there, but while I have your attention, may I ask "WHY"? Gaming is one "anti-linux" area that is frequently cited. Would you mind just going into WHY you use a P.C. for 90% of the time to play games? It's always seemed to me that the "latest and greatest, fastest" games are what drives the purchase of high-end P.C.s, and I don't understand why this is so. Would it not be more logical/cheaper to buy a games console for games, and a (much!) cheaper P.C. for "serious work"? I.O.W. why do you (seemingly) feel that a P.C. is better for games than a dedicated console?
From: FromTheRafters on 27 Mar 2010 19:21 "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message news:hokigr$88u$03$1(a)news.t-online.com... > FromTheRafters wrote: [...] >>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" >>> idiotic claims? In fact, it is a quite damning >>> assessment of windows "capabilities" to get >>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used >> >> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were >> probably on Unix systems > > Hilarious Windows wasn't even mentioned, although Unix was (among others). >>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware... >> >> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group >> and >> talking about *viruses*. > > Malware encompasses viruses, too When you say *viruses*, you should be talking about viruses. Saying that they require an insecure environment in order to exist is misinformation. > ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more > than > idiotic bullshit noted It should also be noted that I provided information (and an authoritative link), and you did nothing but disagree and call me names. >>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing > > Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted I did, I told you that they start executing when their host program is invoked. Much like a trojan executes when you invoke *it*. >>> and how it attaches >>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing >> >> Attaches itself to some vector?? >> >> Sheesh! > > Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives > the > next boot? Ahhh - a multiple choice question. I choose to address the *virus*, since that is the one kind of malware that proves your view wrong. A virus can be at rest. Most other malware wants to remain active (and wants its start method to survive a reboot) so it can steal your computing power and use it for the perpetrators own tasks. A virus can exist quite happily without being resident all of the time. It runs when it runs. > It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in > the > filesystem, whatever) to be present then Yes. It may modify a program (or the environment) so that a program (or programs) *hosts* the virus. The program (now considered a virus itself, as it is "infected" now) can be stored as a file on the filesystem. >> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus >> as >> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your >> chances >> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds >> with one stone. > > Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject > > All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense Well, I guess we're done here...I can only hope somebody *else* has learned something from my posts.
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 19:29
On Friday 26 March 2010 08:06 ToolPackinMama wrote: > On 3/26/2010 3:37 AM, RonB wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:27:42 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote: >> >>> Yes, worked beautifully. I didn't have to install anything to get >>> online. I did DL the available updates, soon after. >> >> Wubi is a great way to try and learn Linux. I don't know if it's the best >> way to use Linux long-term or not as, I think, there's a bit of a >> drop-off in performance. You may want to make some free space on your >> hard drive and just do a normal Ubuntu install somewhere down the line. > > Oh sure, and I probably will, now! I was just marveling about how easy > it is to actually get started, if somebody is brand new to it. Great if it (Wubi) gives you some confidence :-) As I was saying to another poster here though, if you want to use Linux seriously but still need Windows for some apps, I reckon now that far the best way to go is a clean Linux install, then VirtualBox or VMware, and in that create a Virtual Windows machine. Depends if you have a "full retail" of Windows of course, and I suspect not good for fast games, but that apart you get a good solid secure OS as your main OS, used for all browsing, e-mail etc., and Windows is there for Windows apps, and need never be used on the Internet. |