Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: Avira version 10
Next: un anti-virus
From: RayLopez99 on 25 Mar 2010 06:32 Some misguided dude made this statement: ***************** > whether Linux would be inherently more secure > than Windows and whether--this is the point--it would require AV/ > Firewall protection. I say yes, if and when (never) it ever got 90% > market share like Windows. No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written properly ***************** So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your mind, since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware breaches--a MSFT Windows system that has all the latest patches (updates/ sig files, firewall, etc), meaning it has a third party antivirus program running, and a software firewall, or, NATIVE (naked) Linux, meaning a Linux machine connected to the net (OK to have a hardware firewall via the router or NAT box), but without any AV program running on the Linux machine? Apples and oranges? I think not. You see, the Linux cultists believe that Linux is so inherently secure that it does not need a third party firewall or AV program, see above ("No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written properly"). But I say that Windows, with the requisite security, would be SAFER than Linux. As evidence of this, in the last six months the official Linux kernel org has issued two updates to the Linux kernel to patch potential security breaches. The fact that there are few Linux viruses, I maintain, is only due to the less than 1% market share of Linux. I vote for Windows--and de facto so has 90%+ of the computing public. RL Check out this humourous link on Linux distros: http://ibidem.homeip.net/fun/linux/
From: John Doe on 25 Mar 2010 07:41 What the hell is "naked Linux" and why did you cross post this to the home built PC group? Umm, nevermind, I just figured it out... gmail.com - Google Groups RayLopez99 <raylopez88 gmail.com> wrote: > Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > From: RayLopez99 <raylopez88 gmail.com> > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > Subject: Vote--> which is safer: Windows with all updates OR naked Linux? > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:32:41 -0700 (PDT) > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Lines: 44 > Message-ID: <8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222-fde64270179c g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.71.41.143 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > X-Trace: posting.google.com 1269513162 6390 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2010 10:32:42 GMT) > X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:32:42 +0000 (UTC) > Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com > Injection-Info: g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=94.71.41.143; posting-account=fRZa_AkAAACE3nlFA9zM1Eq00OKq1Ycq > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) > > Some misguided dude made this statement: > > ***************** > >> whether Linux would be inherently more secure >> than Windows and whether--this is the point--it would require AV/ >> Firewall protection. I say yes, if and when (never) it ever got 90% >> market share like Windows. > > No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written properly > > > ***************** > > So the issue is this: please vote on what system would (in your mind, > since data is really hard to come by) be safer in terms of malware > breaches--a MSFT Windows system that has all the latest patches > (updates/ sig files, firewall, etc), meaning it has a third party > antivirus program running, and a software firewall, or, NATIVE (naked) > Linux, meaning a Linux machine connected to the net (OK to have a > hardware firewall via the router or NAT box), but without any AV > program running on the Linux machine? > > Apples and oranges? I think not. > > You see, the Linux cultists believe that Linux is so inherently secure > that it does not need a third party firewall or AV program, see above > ("No, it would not need AV. No OS should need AV if written > properly"). But I say that Windows, with the requisite security, > would be SAFER than Linux. As evidence of this, in the last six > months the official Linux kernel org has issued two updates to the > Linux kernel to patch potential security breaches. > > The fact that there are few Linux viruses, I maintain, is only due to > the less than 1% market share of Linux. > > I vote for Windows--and de facto so has 90%+ of the computing public. > > RL > > Check out this humourous link on Linux distros: > > http://ibidem.homeip.net/fun/linux/ > > >
From: FromTheRafters on 25 Mar 2010 08:07 "RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222-fde64270179c(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > Some misguided dude made this statement: "No OS should need AV if written properly" Misguided indeed. AV will be needed to detect "viruses" - viruses do not depend upon any lack of security, so properly written OSes can still support their existance. The above quote just shows that person's lack of understanding the virus problem. Viruses don't generally depend on any software flaws, they depend on the same functionality that the user enjoys - basically, the ability to read from, and write to, storage (memory). Take away one of these needed functions, and the virus can't work (but neither can the user). I might go along with a statement like "No OS should need AM if written and administered properly" - as long as proper administration includes the ability to detect actual viruses. Proper administration may be just as elusive as properly written software.
From: Charlie Wilkes on 25 Mar 2010 08:13 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:07:17 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote: > "RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message As a practical matter Linux bestows a lot of immunity. You can go to trashy websites and click the button that says "WARNING - YOUR SYSTEM IS INFECTED WITH SPYWARE, CLICK HERE TO FIX." > news:8e0f56dc-79cb-4de0-a222-fde64270179c(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> Some misguided dude made this statement: > > "No OS should need AV if written properly" > > Misguided indeed. AV will be needed to detect "viruses" - viruses do not > depend upon any lack of security, so properly written OSes can still > support their existance. The above quote just shows that person's lack > of understanding the virus problem. > > Viruses don't generally depend on any software flaws, they depend on the > same functionality that the user enjoys - basically, the ability to read > from, and write to, storage (memory). Take away one of these needed > functions, and the virus can't work (but neither can the user). > > I might go along with a statement like "No OS should need AM if written > and administered properly" - as long as proper administration includes > the ability to detect actual viruses. Proper administration may be just > as elusive as properly written software.
From: Agent_C on 25 Mar 2010 08:22
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:32:41 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Apples and oranges? I think not. Linux is for Hippies and Communists. Real men use Windows! A_C |