Linux

Big Steel wrote in
m:

On 4/2/2011 8:27 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:49 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:45 AM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:38, Big Steel wrote:


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how
Linux as an architecture to prevent malware. I no more
belive than I believe you.


Pipedream eh? So that's why well over 50% of the world's
web servers are Linux and yet, strange to seem, they
don't get infected - the Windows ones DO?

Bull****, the Linux Web servers are being compromised all
of the time.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...le/141651/atta
ck_against_linux_apache_servers_intensifying.html



Puhlease, the above article is three years old.


I don't care if it was last week. If you think something
made by man can't be attacked by another man, you are
really are a big time fool.

And you don;t care eitehr that the 3 year old articles
explicitly states......

....."He says the attack relies on making use of stolen
passwords to Linux Apache servers by automating the
installation process to force it to serve up attacks against
vulnerabilities on Windows clients."

So, "relies on making use of stolen passwords to Linux Apache
servers" means nothing ?

Linux is said to not have the number of viruses because
Linux is so tiny in comparison. So why bother writing
Linux viruses when most people use Windows anyway? There
is no question inn my mind that if the roles were
reversed and 99% were using Linux. You can bet Linux
would have tons more viruses than Windows did.

That's the FUD that MS wants you to believe and you
swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase
slightly, so does the number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't
Linux supposed to be safer today? And to get the idea of
how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses

And? Where are they? Are Linux users getting infected left and
right by just visiting a web site?

What's far more telling is this.......

....."In 1990, estimates ranged from 200 to 500; then in 1991
estimates ranged from 600 to 1,000 different viruses. In late
1992, estimates were ranging from 1,000 to 2,300 viruses. In
mid-1994, the numbers vary from 4,500 to over 7,500 viruses.
In 1996 the number climbed over 10,000. 1998 saw 20,000 and
2000 topped 50,000. It's easy to say there are more now.
Indeed, in April 2008, the BBC reportedWeb Link that Symantec
now claims "that the security firm's anti-virus programs
detect to 1,122,311" viruses and that "almost two thirds of
all malicious code threats currently detected were created
during 2007."

........for Windows.

Boscoe wrote in
:

On 02/04/2011 4:41 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 16:35, Boscoe wrote:
On 02/04/2011 4:28 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 16:20, Boscoe wrote:



He's a Linux troll

Oh yeah? I'm also a Community Contributor on the MS
Answers forums if you had the skills and intelligence to
post there...

Gosh!! He has trouble doing up his shoe laces.

And here's a Linux kernel exploit with hundreds more if
you care to look.

http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/154707


sigh That's a vulnerability in Ubuntu 6.06 - that
version is FIVE YEARS OLD - I shouldn't think ANYONE is
using it now. Can't you come up with anything more recent?
Like to list the vulnerabilities in XP? That's the same
age...


PMSL

It's a good job they fixed it on March 25, then.
Priceless!!

To be technically correct, this possible issue was just
identified/notified on 11/29/2010, not 5 years ago.

Anyway, the kernel was vulnerable and there are a lot more
recent examples.

Yes, it was.

How many Linux viruses/trojans/malware packages have been
released into the wild and are now replicating and infecting
Linux users everywhere bedause of it ?

It's all about *active* exploitation.

All OSs, and some applications that run on those OSs, have
some deficienies, but, does it really matter?......

.........not unless there's some piece of
spyware/malware/virus/worm/trojan out there, actively using
these "exploits" to infect/replicate/phone home.

(Hmmmm, I'll have to post this now, since the system's asking
me to reboot because it just updated the kernel. Probably to
fix one of those never used exploits you keep raving about.
Phew!!!!!! Good thing I didn't have to wait until the second
Tuesday of the month to be protected from wild exploits that
don't exist.)

Ezekiel wrote:


"BillW50" wrote in message ...
Muad'Dib wrote:
On 04/03/2011 05:46 AM, BillW50 wrote:

Also remember when Apple was broke and was going to close their doors?
Microsoft gave them money to kept them going and AFAIK Apple never
paid them back. Giving your competitor money to stay in business is
just unheard of in this industry.


I do remember and I remember this silly urban legend as well. The
problem is that it's neither true nor accurate. In return for the $150M
Microsoft got a 6% stake of Apple stock and promised not to sell the
shares for at least 3 years. If they had held on to the shares today the
$150M of Apple stock would be worth $4.5 billion.

quote
*Legend Becomes Myth*

As noted in Paul Thurrott's Merciless Attack on Artie MacStrawman, it is
fashionable among Microsoft apologists to insist that the company bailed
Apple out in an altruistic act of compassion, and that any success now
enjoyed by Apple should rightfully be delivered to Microsoft in tribute.

Mark Stephens, writing as Robert X Cringely, speculated that Apple made
the deal to gain access to Windows code, and is secretly using the now
expired cross licensing agreement to deliver the Red Box, a system for
flawlessly running yesterday's Windows applications within Mac OS X,
just as seamlessly as OS/2 could run Win16 and DOS programs.

Others have suggested Apple was just out of money and desperately needed
Microsoft's help, ignoring the fact that Apple had just reported holding
$1.2 billion in cash. Another $0.15 billion wasn't going to make any
significant difference in the survival of the company.
/quote

I see lots of problems here. First of all, before this was Apple and
Microsoft was locked in war in court. As Apple sued Microsoft for
stealing its GUI from Apple. Microsoft charged that Apple stolen the GUI
from Xerox. So Apple is just as guilty. This went on for what 7 years or
so? And it was a dead stalemate. Apple finally called it quits since
they were never going to be sucessful in this lawsuit and was going broke.

Now here is where Microsoft gives Apple money. So what is the deal here?
If Apple didn't need it, why did they take it? So Mark Stephens is
Robert X. Cringely, eh? I always wondered about that. And while I have a
lot of respect for Cringely, he doesn't aways get everything right. But
most of the things are me just being nitpicky. ;-)

I admit, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense unless Apple needed
the money in the first place. And if they did have $1.2 billion in cash,
that doesn't mean they were rich. As how long could a company like Apple
run for on that amount? It might not be that long. I'm sure Apple was
hoping of getting billions from Microsoft the easy way by suing them.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On 04/03/2011 03:48 PM, BillW50 wrote:
Ubuntu has no business messing around in the Windows partition, ever!

So ask for your money back.

--
Alias

I don't care if it was last week. If you think something
made by man can't be attacked by another man, you are
really are a big time fool.

And you don;t care eitehr that the 3 year old articles
explicitly states......

...."He says the attack relies on making use of stolen
passwords to Linux Apache servers by automating the
installation process to force it to serve up attacks against
vulnerabilities on Windows clients."

So, "relies on making use of stolen passwords to Linux Apache
servers" means nothing ?

.....regardless of my spelling.

On 4/3/2011 10:27 AM, DanS wrote:
Big wrote in
m:

On 4/2/2011 8:27 AM, Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 01:49 PM, Big Steel wrote:
On 4/2/2011 7:45 AM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 12:38, Big Steel wrote:


You can keep that little pipe dream going about how
Linux as an architecture to prevent malware. I no more
belive than I believe you.


Pipedream eh? So that's why well over 50% of the world's
web servers are Linux and yet, strange to seem, they
don't get infected - the Windows ones DO?

Bull****, the Linux Web servers are being compromised all
of the time.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...le/141651/atta
ck_against_linux_apache_servers_intensifying.html



Puhlease, the above article is three years old.


I don't care if it was last week. If you think something
made by man can't be attacked by another man, you are
really are a big time fool.

And you don;t care eitehr that the 3 year old articles
explicitly states......

...."He says the attack relies on making use of stolen
passwords to Linux Apache servers by automating the
installation process to force it to serve up attacks against
vulnerabilities on Windows clients."

So, "relies on making use of stolen passwords to Linux Apache
servers" means nothing ?

It makes no difference.

On 4/3/2011 7:57 AM, Kevin Safford wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 18:13:31 -0400, Big Steel wrote:

The only excuse that he can possibly have for not going over to Linux is
that he doesn't ware the pants in his family like you say.

s/ware/wear/

hth and hand


Should I get you some tissues for issues?

HAND -- no help

In ,
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
BillW50 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses

Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".

The claim was Linux doesn't get viruses. So I guess that was just a
lie, eh? So what else is new?

No one has ever claimed that.

Sure they have. I hear this all of the time. Here are just two examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #1

In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/02/2011 05:34 PM, BillW50 wrote:
Really? Then why are there Linux anti-virus software then?

To protect Windows computers connected to Linux computers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #2

In ,
Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 15:58, BillW50 wrote:
Really? Then who are buying all of those Linux antivirus software
then?

sigh Those are to protect WINDOWS boxes on the same network as the
Linux box - if the network was all Linux then there would be no need
for them...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ END

And what is even more laughable is considering the small number of
applications that runs under Linux. How many games can Linux run now?
About 300 isn't it?

If true, that would be about 298 more than I play.

If you want a game PC, if all you care about is games, yeah, go for
Windows.

Everybody has different needs and wants. Some wants games, some
productivity, etc. The one that runs more applications bar none is
Windows. Nobody else comes close.

Laughable in the extreme.

What is even more laughable is the Commodore 64 was said to run
20,000 applications if I remember right. And was popular for 10
years before it died out. And Linux has been around for 19 years
(almost twice as long). And I don't think it has caught up to the
success of the Commodore 64 yet.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen how many packages are in a Debian
distro?

Over 30,000. And then you have commercial Linux applications.

Sure, not the same kind of "market" as Windows, but it covers a lot of
territory.

Very nice, 30,000! That is probably enough to keep it out of the grave
for awhile. Obviously 20,000 wasn't enough to save the Commodore 64. And
I tried to find a best guess for Windows programs and I can't find
anybody willing to guess. But it has to be in the tens of millions at
least.

I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are
required to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However,
Linux is exempt from the "anti-virus" requirement.

McAfee is one of the worst. I guess the IT department isn't that
bright where you work at, eh?

The DoD has never been known for its intelligence; that's why they
have such a reliance on Windows and its crutches.

Personally, I wouldn't attribute "quality" to AV software. At best,
AV will hopefully not slow your computer down tooooooo much.

"BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?

All I had to show was Linux can and does get viruses. Nothing more.
If you want more, I charge by the hour. ;-)

If I want more, I'll google for Windows viruses. It's a shame, too,
because the Windows kernel seems to be a good piece of work.

Funny I have been running Windows since '93 and I *never* had a virus
yet. Worked on other people's computers that did though. And they are
the same ones that don't listen well and generally click on anything.

I used to believe Windows Updates were part of my success. But I was
getting many reports of people not getting viruses without updates. So I
had taken one test computer to see if it would work for me too. And
after a year, still no viruses. So I stopped updating on two more test
computers and they never got viruses either. And this was about three
years in total now. And only this computer gets updates sometimes. The
rest of them I don't bother.

But you can't go on the net bare ass naked either running Windows. As
you will get infected in about 90 seconds that way. First and most
important is to hide from strangers pinging your computer (stealth
firewall or router works). The second is a good AV that updates at least
once a day.

Of course the third is don't open email from people you don't know and
going to websites known for viruses. And that will pretty much keep you
out of trouble.

There is a fourth thing which is optional, but really solid. And if you
do, you are pretty much be guaranteed that you will never get a virus
(no matter how stupid you are). That is to run browsers, email, and
anything that connects to the net in a sandbox. MS EWF is like this two,
but it is like everything runs in a sandbox.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 04/03/2011 08:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:
Funny I have been running Windows since '93 and I*never* had a virus
yet.

Now *that's* funny! And such a bald faced lie.

--
Alias

In . 97.131,
DanS wrote:
Linux is said to not have the number of viruses because
Linux is so tiny in comparison. So why bother writing
Linux viruses when most people use Windows anyway? There
is no question inn my mind that if the roles were
reversed and 99% were using Linux. You can bet Linux
would have tons more viruses than Windows did.

That's the FUD that MS wants you to believe and you
swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase
slightly, so does the number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't
Linux supposed to be safer today? And to get the idea of
how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses

And? Where are they? Are Linux users getting infected left and
right by just visiting a web site?

What's far more telling is this.......

...."In 1990, estimates ranged from 200 to 500; then in 1991
estimates ranged from 600 to 1,000 different viruses. In late
1992, estimates were ranging from 1,000 to 2,300 viruses. In
mid-1994, the numbers vary from 4,500 to over 7,500 viruses.
In 1996 the number climbed over 10,000. 1998 saw 20,000 and
2000 topped 50,000. It's easy to say there are more now.
Indeed, in April 2008, the BBC reportedWeb Link that Symantec
now claims "that the security firm's anti-virus programs
detect to 1,122,311" viruses and that "almost two thirds of
all malicious code threats currently detected were created
during 2007."

.......for Windows.

All very interesting of course and the Windows virus writers are very
busy. But what does this really mean?

Well I have been using Windows since '93 and didn't even have an AV
until '96 and knock on wood, I never had a virus infection yet. And the
method I use doesn't even depend on updating Windows either (that's
optional).

So when I hear scare tactics about the dangers of running Windows and
getting infected... it means very little to me and those who actually
listens to well sounded and tested security advice.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

In ,
Alias wrote:
On 04/03/2011 08:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:
Funny I have been running Windows since '93 and I*never* had a virus
yet.

Now *that's* funny! And such a bald faced lie.

All true! I did something stupid once in 2002 though. I installed
Windows 2000, no updates, no AV, and no firewall. And all I did was to
get online and I went directly to Windows Update to get updates online.
Then I downloaded an AV.

I needed to reboot for the updates, but not to run the AV. So I ran the
AV before rebooting and there was two viruses just sitting inactive
until the computer got rebooted (they were setup to run at startup). And
that was the closest I ever got. And I learned never go without a
stealth firewall. If I just did that, they never would have never been
on my hard drive at all.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era)
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

On 03/04/2011 4:29 PM, DanS wrote:
wrote in
:

On 02/04/2011 4:41 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 16:35, Boscoe wrote:
On 02/04/2011 4:28 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 02/04/2011 16:20, Boscoe wrote:



He's a Linux troll

Oh yeah? I'm also a Community Contributor on the MS
Answers forums if you had the skills and intelligence to
post there...

Gosh!! He has trouble doing up his shoe laces.

And here's a Linux kernel exploit with hundreds more if
you care to look.

http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/154707


sigh That's a vulnerability in Ubuntu 6.06 - that
version is FIVE YEARS OLD - I shouldn't think ANYONE is
using it now. Can't you come up with anything more recent?
Like to list the vulnerabilities in XP? That's the same
age...


PMSL

It's a good job they fixed it on March 25, then.
Priceless!!

To be technically correct, this possible issue was just
identified/notified on 11/29/2010, not 5 years ago.

Anyway, the kernel was vulnerable and there are a lot more
recent examples.

Yes, it was.

How many Linux viruses/trojans/malware packages have been
released into the wild and are now replicating and infecting
Linux users everywhere bedause of it ?

It's all about *active* exploitation.

All OSs, and some applications that run on those OSs, have
some deficienies, but, does it really matter?......

........not unless there's some piece of
spyware/malware/virus/worm/trojan out there, actively using
these "exploits" to infect/replicate/phone home.

(Hmmmm, I'll have to post this now, since the system's asking
me to reboot because it just updated the kernel. Probably to
fix one of those never used exploits you keep raving about.
Phew!!!!!! Good thing I didn't have to wait until the second
Tuesday of the month to be protected from wild exploits that
don't exist.)



Why should I have to wait for the second Tuesday of the month when I've
never been infected?

You're no expert so don't treat others in such a condescending fashion
when you obviously have no idea how to protect a Windows machine.

Stick with an O/S which is safe because hardly anyone uses it. Why, it
almost as safe as Win 98 and no-one uses that, either.

On 03/04/2011 20:18, Boscoe wrote:


Stick with an O/S which is safe because hardly anyone uses it.

I expect that the ISP you use uses it. More than 60% of the world's
webservers USE LINUX. So why don't they get attacked like Windows?
because IT'S TOO DIFFICULT. Any 8 year old can write a virus for Windows
- mthe same is NOT true for Linux.
get some FACTS and INFORMATION before you post total crap.
Moron.

On 03/04/2011 20:00, BillW50 wrote:

All very interesting of course and the Windows virus writers are very
busy. But what does this really mean?

It means you moron that ANYONE can write a virus for Windows, but it is
VERY DIFFICULT to write a virus for Linux - well beyond the capability
of your average 8 year-old who writes Windows viruses..