On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Hans van der Merwe wrote: > If/When Linux makes it big-time on the desktop do you think it will also > be bogged down with virus attacks as MS is now.
No. The reason windows is attacked is because its EASY, not JUST because its popular. Believing otherwise is swallowing Microsoft FUD hook line and sinker. > Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks? Because it is. With windows, simply sending you a file can infect you. With linux, sending you a file and having you click on it all day long STILL does not make it executable. > I know to > install stuff in the system, root is necessary, but installing and > running dangerous stuff in the user home directories is easy; you just > need a cunning app to fool the user in executing malicious code. Social engineering is always a risk, but with Linux you can even prevent against that to a far greater degree than with windows. Egress filtering does a lot. But the real protection is that users who are too dumb to realized WHY they are being asked to set something executable when all they thought they were doing was getting a eCard from a classmate or a bored girl are also too dumb to figure out how to set it executable. > (given, doing this in Win is easier, but not impossible in any flavour > Linux) I submit that for all practical purposes it is impossible. Or at the very least impractical. Evidence: We have been fighting windows viruses and worms tooth and nail for Over 10 Years. Wouldn't you thing that would have been time enough for some clever virus writer to try and take over that very LARGE segment of internet web servers that run on various 'nix machines, and which serve as firewalls to vast data warehouses? Further advances in SE linux make it even less likely in the future. Bill would like you to believe its JUST because his OS is popular. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
