Zero-day Windows bug problem worse than first thought, says expert

On 21/08/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss






That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.


Just one example. How much malware specifically written for Windows
with billions of users against those specifically written for Linux,
witch has less than 1% of the market? It doesn't need to be bulletproof
does it, because no-one's bothered!!

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Boscoe" wrote in message news:f8Tbo.10484$yY6.9224@hurricane...

On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss


Susceptible yes. Attacked? NO!


The malware writers don't consider a few hundred linux lusers a big enough
target.

Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss







That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.


Just one example. How much malware specifically written for Windows with
billions of users against those specifically written for Linux, witch
has less than 1% of the market? It doesn't need to be bulletproof does
it, because no-one's bothered!!

You're repeating yourself. Bad sign, what with the same typo.

--
Alias

nooneyouknow wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Boscoe" wrote in message news:f8Tbo.10484$yY6.9224@hurricane...

On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss



Susceptible yes. Attacked? NO!


The malware writers don't consider a few hundred linux lusers a big
enough target.

Try over 30 million and growing. Linux servers are indeed a big enough
target but thanks for playing and revealing your total ignorance.

--
Alias

In article ,
.¡nvalido says...

On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss





That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your article:


What got patched?
A hacked version of a .tar.gz was put up on a server.
It required the user ****in DL it.
That's user input?
How the **** does the user know what the developer let's happen on his
mirrors?

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."


Yeah, its real hard to get an ubuntard to rum dd, rm commands, since
those idiots will paste any sudo command into their terminal trying to
get mp3 to play
Hahahahaha.

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.

Linux is bulletproof in that nobody shoots at retards with 37 bucks in a
checking account.

On 8/21/2010 6:05 AM, Alias wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ht_says_expert


Another good reason to use Linux.

Only a fool like you would come to that conclusion.
BTW, why are you using Windows?
Oops!

On 8/21/2010 7:54 AM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 03:51 PM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
i76GLappie wrote:
In article ,
.¡nvalido says...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ht_says_expert




Another good reason to use Linux.


Are we bored? Trying to stir the pot? Luckily, I don't pay any heed
to anyone labeled an expert. Expert bull****er, yes, plenty of those.
Never met an actual expert in any field.

Been using Windows for a hundred years ... never been hacked. I must
be an expert. Hurray. Windows is fine, says expert.

You know, I've wondered about that. I've been using Windows since Al
Gore invented it, and the closest I have ever come to malware is reading
warnings about it from the experts.

Not all malware will announce itself, dumb ****. This is why there are
hundreds of thousands of Windows boxes in net bots.

I never even used AV/AT software until
it came with the system in Windows 7. I did use a simple, unstealthy
firewall.
("Stealth" is another of my favorite myths.)

You've probably been infected since Windows 95 and totally unaware of
it. No wonder you call yourself a "dummy".

WTF is wrong with you? Did babba have a
"headache" last night? Are you jealous of all of us who can afford to
run Windows 7? We know you're broke and can only use W 7 when your
customer lets you use their laptop.
Get a life you ****ing POS MS hating, asshole linturd loser.

On 8/21/2010 7:53 AM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 03:18 PM, i76GLappie wrote:
In ,
.¡nvalido says...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ht_says_expert


Another good reason to use Linux.


Are we bored?

No.

Trying to stir the pot?

No.

Luckily, I don't pay any heed to anyone labeled an expert.

We know you're stupid. Why you have to confirm it is beyond me.

Expert bull****er, yes, plenty of those.

Yeah, like you.

Never met an actual expert in any field.

You lead a sheltered life.


Been using Windows for a hundred years ... never been hacked.

You mean you lie about how long and you don't have a clue as to whether
you've been hacked.

I must be an expert.

You wish.

Hurray.
Windows is fine, says expert.

You're an idiot is what you are.

Projecting again cock sucker? You need to let babba, your male sheep
lover, butt-**** you for hours...seeing as you're so full of ****!

On 21/08/2010 6:11 PM, Alias wrote:
Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss








That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.


Just one example. How much malware specifically written for Windows with
billions of users against those specifically written for Linux, witch
has less than 1% of the market? It doesn't need to be bulletproof does
it, because no-one's bothered!!

You didn't read what I wrote or you have a serious reading comprehension
problem. When you get over it, get back to me.


I never read what you write because it's always a load of ********.

Yes it's certainly inexcusable missing an 'h' but then small-minded
people have little else in life to do will criticise a typo. Because
this makes you look big and underlines deep rooted problems of
inadequacies such as a small penis with no women in your life.

Am I right or am I right?

On 8/21/2010 7:56 AM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 04:22 PM, Unbeliever wrote:
Alias wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ht_says_expert


Another good reason to use Linux.

Linfux is a Zero Day bug in itself!

Just wait until the hackers, crackers and spammers think that enough
people
are using Linfux to make it worth their while to start attacking it -
then
we'll really see how good it is in defending itself from 'em without the
help of the AV firms.

And that will wipe the smile off your mush mate. *eg*



Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.

Projecting again sheep-****er?
Figures! Stupid POS asshole lying loser.

On 8/21/2010 10:11 AM, Alias wrote:
Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss








That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.


Just one example. How much malware specifically written for Windows with
billions of users against those specifically written for Linux, witch
has less than 1% of the market? It doesn't need to be bulletproof does
it, because no-one's bothered!!

You didn't read what I wrote or you have a serious reading comprehension
problem. When you get over it, get back to me.

Projecting again....you ****ing loser!
Get a life asshole!

On 8/21/2010 10:17 AM, Alias wrote:
Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 5:44 PM, Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss








That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:

"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it harder
to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows, OTOH,
has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected without user
input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows. Note I wrote
"compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.


Just one example. How much malware specifically written for Windows with
billions of users against those specifically written for Linux, witch
has less than 1% of the market? It doesn't need to be bulletproof does
it, because no-one's bothered!!

You're repeating yourself. Bad sign, what with the same typo.

No, you are the one who keeps repeating himself. You keep posting the
same **** and what do you think or want to happen? Do you actually think
that everyone in here will suddenly switch to that POS toy os you're so
in love with? Think again...cause it ain't gonna happen. And if Windows
7 is so venerable to being infected, then explain why none of us in here
are infected nor have we ever been infected.
Well...care to address those real questions?
BTW, have you ever noticed how everyone in here, other than a few of
your butt-buddies, hate your ****ing lying, linturd guts?
Oops!

On 8/21/2010 10:18 AM, Alias wrote:
nooneyouknow wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"Boscoe" wrote in message news:f8Tbo.10484$yY6.9224@hurricane...

On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?


http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss




Susceptible yes. Attacked? NO!


The malware writers don't consider a few hundred linux lusers a big
enough target.

Try over 30 million and growing.

Only in your dreams. And those who use linux are broke and don't have
anything the thieves would want.
After all, linux is free, yet still not worth anything.

Linux servers are indeed a big enough
target but thanks for playing and revealing your total ignorance.

Sorry sheep-****er, but there are plenty of cases where linux servers
where compromised.
Oops!

Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 04:22 PM, Unbeliever wrote:
Alias wrote:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ht_says_expert

Another good reason to use Linux.

Linfux is a Zero Day bug in itself!

Just wait until the hackers, crackers and spammers think that enough
people are using Linfux to make it worth their while to start
attacking it - then we'll really see how good it is in defending
itself from 'em without the help of the AV firms.

And that will wipe the smile off your mush mate. *eg*



Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.

Yep I do understand the Linfux architecture - used it for a few months years
ago, (probably while you were still in nappies [diapers]) and threw it out
as it wasn't worth the aggravation at the time.

Alias wrote:
On 08/21/2010 06:27 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 21/08/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:

Oh dear, another windroid who doesn't understand Linux architecture.
It's not a smile but a smirk.



You're an ignorant fool. Linux not susceptible to malware or
rootkits...?
http://news.techworld.com/security/3226723/linux-trojan-hits-unreal-irc-raises-malware-concerns/?olo=rss





That's all you got? LOL! One possible threat that's been patched,
requires user input and wasn't/isn't in the repositories. From your
article:
"The difference is that the way the Linux OS is written makes it
harder to exploit a vulnerability, and that is because its open source
vulnerabilities are fixed in hours rather than months."

When I install Linux for someone, I tell them to only install software
from the repositories. Any OS can be ****ed up by a fool. Windows,
OTOH, has drive by malware and a Windows machine can be infected
without user input. IOW, Linux is *bulletproof* compared to Windows.
Note I wrote "compared". No OS is completely bulletproof.

Only while there are comparatively so few users of Linfux.