Hi, On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 18:49 +0100, Tom Davies wrote:
> <snip /> > > Luckily Ubuntu is not targeted to the degree that MS Windows is and thus you > have a lesser degree of exploitation. > > Dave > Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk > http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp > > > Hi :) > Hmm, not quite the case. Servers would make a far better target than > desktops > if the aim of malware is to cause disruption or grab data. Pranks and > accidents > are sooo last decade. > > > However, we still hardly ever hear about servers suffering. If it happens at > all it often gets reported in the mainstream news because it's so rare. So, > why > is it so common-place to hear of desktops getting infected instead of > servers? > > > Interestingly it's the market where MS is dominant that has the most trouble > with malware. Most big servers run Gnu&Linux, Bsd or some other Unix-based > platform precisely because stability and security are more important. > > http://librenix.com/?inode=21 > > Even if we just look at desktops we would expect a platform such as Mac at an > estimated 20% of the market taking 20% of the malware. Yet we have heard of > less than a handful. Again it's so rare that it reaches the mainstream > press. > > > People that want to sound knowledgeable about malware and sound serious about > it > use Windows. There is a lot to know! It's good to show-off about how much > you > know but always the intel these people have is old because they are always > trying to catch-up with the ingenuity of malware creators. People who are > just > serious about stability and security and want to stay ahead of the game tend > to > use Gnu&Linux (or Bsd, or even Mac). > > > Regards from > Tom :) > Two other factors that help Gnu/Linux and BSD in particular is that they are often installed and used by more knowledgeable users and probably more importantly is that most desktop Linux users can find almost all the software they need in relatively secure repositories maintained by the distros. Mac, I believe, comes with a suite of software aimed at the most common desktop needs already installed. Another factor with Linux and BSD (include the Mac) is no typical setup exists, every distro has their own ideas of what makes a good distro and how it should be done. Thus there are fewer common attack vectors that all Linux distros have, primarily at the kernel level. Above the kernel level you have significant differences between Red Hat/Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSUSE/SUSE, etc and add in the number of different environments. Thus an exploit that targets KDE (or any other desktop) probably will not have much affect on other desktops simply because they may not have the required files installed or even need the files. In Windows you have the situation where users range from extremely knowledgeable to total incompetence, compound this with there is essentially a single OS for each version of Window. This allows crackers a wealth of very similar targets with less effort. Add that some the users are utterly clueless about computer security and you have a situation were attacks will be successful enough for the crackers to justify their efforts. -- Jay Lozier [email protected] -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
