If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rating: | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Defender Offline
On 01/08/2012 05:07 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
On 1/8/2012 8:53 AM, Alias wrote: On 01/08/2012 03:36 PM, Roy Smith wrote: On 1/8/2012 5:13 AM, BillW50 wrote: In , philo wrote: All well and good but in the case of root kits... what would lead someone to suspect one is when their credit card or bank account gets compromised... in other words *too late* That's why I moved over to Linux 2+ years ago You are a Linux user and don't know what Root means? That is where the rootkit was originally created for. Hacking into Linux and Unix machines. It just amazes me how many Linux users who knows nothing about Linux malware. Most Linux users don't run AV software or anything. And they could be totally infected with malware and still be totally clueless. I honestly didn't know that, so I went to Wikipedia and found this: The term rootkit or root kit originally referred to a maliciously-modified set of administrative tools for a Unix-like operating system that granted "root" access. If an intruder could replace the standard administrative tools on a system with a rootkit, the intruder could obtain root access over the system whilst simultaneously concealing these activities from the legitimate system administrator. These first generation rootkits were trivial to detect by using tools such as Tripwire that had not been compromised to access the same information. It amazes me how the most die-hard Linux user claims that they are impervious to viruses. Though truth be know it's more likely that there isn't much of an interest in targeting such a small demographic, and the interest is in targeting the most common OS on PCs today. Now if things were the other way and Linux was the most popular OS on PCs then we would be hearing about viruses on them instead. Thank you for regurgitating MS FUD. It's bull****. In your opinion.... just think about it, if you were of a criminal mind and wanted to write a malware program to acquire bank account numbers and you had your choice of three OSs. OS #1 has a base of 1,500,000 users, OS #2 has 9,000,000 users, and OS #3 has 250,000,000 users. Which one would you choose? I would think #3, not because it may be easier to write malware for that OS, but because it has far more users than the other OSs thus increasing your chances of obtaining your goal. That's fine and dandy but isn't the reason why Linux is bullet ****ing proof compared to Windows. Nor does it explain why Windows 7 is more secure than XP. -- Alias |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|