How secure are you

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Ionizer, May 21, 2004.

  1. Ionizer

    Ionizer Guest

    "Tracker" <"snail(valid)mail222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    > don't know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.


    What's YOUR skill level like in the simple act of adjusting your clock
    settings? Minimal, apparently, so here's how to do it:

    1. Double click the time in the lower right corner of the system tray.
    2. In the dialog box that pops up select the *Time Zone* tab.
    3. Use the drop down menu to select the correct entry for "your" TIME
    ZONE.
    Check "Automatically adjust clock for daylight saving changes
    4. Also, Check the box marked Daylight Savings Time.
    5. Then click OK to save it.

    ~Further information at the site below.~
    http://www.visi.com/~barr/timezone.html

    Hope that helps,
    Ian.
     
    Ionizer, May 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :

    > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    > don’t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.
    >
    > Tracker


    Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
     
    patrick Lottier, May 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ionizer

    Malev Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:57:54 -0400, "Ionizer" <> wrote:

    >"Tracker" <"snail(valid)mail222000"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:...


    <tracker troll shite>

    >
    >What's YOUR skill level like in the simple act of adjusting your clock
    >settings? Minimal, apparently, so here's how to do it:


    Don't feed the troll
     
    Malev, May 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Ionizer

    ParrotRob Guest

    "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...
    > Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
    >
    > > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    > > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    > > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    > > don’t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    > > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.
    > >
    > > Tracker

    >
    > Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !


    Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment
    poking a little fun at linuxheads?
     
    ParrotRob, May 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Ionizer

    Fred Garvin Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker wrote:

    > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    > don’t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.
    >
    > Tracker



    Nahhhh, I'll just keep using my Linux machine thanks.

    Enjoy your Windows "experience"!
     
    Fred Garvin, May 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Ionizer

    NOTICE Guest

    USENET POST WARNING
    ===================
    The User by the name "Tracker" aka "Debbie", aka VPNSISHACKERSSECRET,
    aka "snailmail", aka "mailbox", aka "hackingsecureit" regularly
    posts incorrect, misleading, and damaging information. To rely
    on the advice of this person could result in irreparable damage to
    your system. You are advised not to listen to anything that this person
    posts, and certainly to not attempt or believe anything this person
    advises. The following link provides additional information:

    http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm (sic)


    GENERAL COMPUTER HEALTH WARNING
    ===============================

    Any advice from a poster using the identity "Tracker" may contain
    dangerous nonsense and should be immediately deleted from your
    computer.

    Do NOT contact this person by email!

    Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages
    only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation.

    Visit the fan club at:
    http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm (sic)


    PROPER REACTION TO FUTURE POSTS
    ===============================

    The first person identifying any additional post from the above mentioned
    individual should post this message. This should alert
    any newbie not familiar with this subject, as to the proper reaction to
    her drivel (sic).


    CONTENTS OF THIS POST
    =====================

    Please note that the URL provided above is correct as spelled. The
    website name is spelled as chosen by its creator, who is not the poster of
    this advice.
     
    NOTICE, May 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Ionizer

    NOTICE Guest

    USENET POST WARNING
    ===================
    The User by the name "Tracker" aka "Debbie", aka VPNSISHACKERSSECRET,
    aka "snailmail", aka "mailbox", aka "hackingsecureit" regularly
    posts incorrect, misleading, and damaging information. To rely
    on the advice of this person could result in irreparable damage to
    your system. You are advised not to listen to anything that this person
    posts, and certainly to not attempt or believe anything this person
    advises. The following link provides additional information:

    http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm (sic)


    GENERAL COMPUTER HEALTH WARNING
    ===============================

    Any advice from a poster using the identity "Tracker" may contain
    dangerous nonsense and should be immediately deleted from your
    computer.

    Do NOT contact this person by email!

    Do NOT feed the Trolls, one warning is enough, further messages
    only reinforce the desire for attention that provides motivation.

    Visit the fan club at:
    http://www.sand-n-sea.us/debbiesdrival.htm (sic)


    PROPER REACTION TO FUTURE POSTS
    ===============================

    The first person identifying any additional post from the above mentioned
    individual should post this message. This should alert
    any newbie not familiar with this subject, as to the proper reaction to
    her drivel (sic).


    CONTENTS OF THIS POST
    =====================

    Please note that the URL provided above is correct as spelled. The
    website name is spelled as chosen by its creator, who is not the poster of
    this advice.
     
    NOTICE, May 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Ionizer

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>, Tracker <"snail(valid)
    mail222000"@yahoo.com> says...
    > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    > don?t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.


    Here is your chance to show your skill Debbie:

    I opened Explorer, selected C drive, clicked on the [+] next to the
    windows folder, it expanded the folder:

    I have checked "Display the contents of system folders", "Show hidden
    files and folders", and I unchecked "Hide protected operating system
    files".

    In looking at the C:\Windows folder I have no light colored files or
    folders.

    I have used this station for more than a year and have about 40GB worth
    of development tools installed on it, not to mention more than 70GB of
    data for projects.

    So, oh Wizard of BS, tell me how my computer is susceptible to hackers -
    one hint - you can't!

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, May 21, 2004
    #8
  9. Ionizer

    Tracker Guest

    Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    don’t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.

    Tracker
     
    Tracker, May 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Ionizer

    Fred Garvin Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:

    > "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...
    >> Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
    >>
    >> > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of our
    >> > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    >> > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    >> > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need to
    >> > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If you
    >> > don’t know how to perform this function then this will tell many others
    >> > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know this.
    >> >
    >> > Tracker

    >>
    >> Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !

    >
    > Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment
    > poking a little fun at linuxheads?



    No, he's right. Basically.

    Windows sucks donkey ass. But you already know that deep down inside.
     
    Fred Garvin, May 22, 2004
    #10
  11. "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message news:p...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    >
    > > "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    > > news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...


    [snipped Tracker's stuff}

    > >> Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !

    > >
    > > Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment
    > > poking a little fun at linuxheads?

    >
    >
    > No, he's right. Basically.


    "Basically right" is sort of like "a little bit pregnant" - it *is* or it *isn't*
    just as she *is* or she *isn't*.

    > Windows sucks donkey ass. But you already know that deep down inside.


    However, that is *not* what the poster had said. "Virusproof" is what
    the poster had said.

    ....and that is absolutely wrong.

    I will accept that Linux is virus resistant when compared to Windows,
    especially the non-NT versions and those w/FAT(16/32) filesystems.
     
    FromTheRafters, May 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Ionizer

    Fred Garvin Guest

    On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:12:29 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

    >
    > "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message news:p...
    >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    >>
    >> > "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    >> > news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...

    >
    > [snipped Tracker's stuff}
    >
    >> >> Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
    >> >
    >> > Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment
    >> > poking a little fun at linuxheads?

    >>
    >>
    >> No, he's right. Basically.

    >
    > "Basically right" is sort of like "a little bit pregnant" - it *is* or it *isn't*
    > just as she *is* or she *isn't*.
    >
    >> Windows sucks donkey ass. But you already know that deep down inside.

    >
    > However, that is *not* what the poster had said. "Virusproof" is what
    > the poster had said.
    >
    > ...and that is absolutely wrong.
    >
    > I will accept that Linux is virus resistant when compared to Windows,
    > especially the non-NT versions and those w/FAT(16/32) filesystems.



    I said basically right because there ARE a few linux bug a boos however
    there are currently none out in the wild as they say. Plus, "out of the
    box" Linux is more secure.
     
    Fred Garvin, May 23, 2004
    #12
  13. "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message news:p...
    > On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:12:29 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message news:p...
    > >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    > >> > news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...

    > >
    > > [snipped Tracker's stuff}
    > >
    > >> >> Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
    > >> >
    > >> > Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek comment
    > >> > poking a little fun at linuxheads?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> No, he's right. Basically.

    > >
    > > "Basically right" is sort of like "a little bit pregnant" - it *is* or it *isn't*
    > > just as she *is* or she *isn't*.
    > >
    > >> Windows sucks donkey ass. But you already know that deep down inside.

    > >
    > > However, that is *not* what the poster had said. "Virusproof" is what
    > > the poster had said.
    > >
    > > ...and that is absolutely wrong.
    > >
    > > I will accept that Linux is virus resistant when compared to Windows,
    > > especially the non-NT versions and those w/FAT(16/32) filesystems.

    >
    >
    > I said basically right because there ARE a few linux bug a boos however
    > there are currently none out in the wild as they say. Plus, "out of the
    > box" Linux is more secure.


    Yes, I can agree with that. But "virusproof" is not the same as
    "there aren't as many or likely to be as many viruses for...". The
    Linux OS is still able to support individually - and with sufficient
    number globally - viruses. They may not be the same as viruses
    that target Windows environments, but the potential for problems
    still exists - and also, as the number of machines running that OS
    increases, so does the risk.

    The attitude that "it can't happen here" usually contributes to it
    happening. Linux users need to get a grip on reality and treat
    malware as something that concerns them too.
     
    FromTheRafters, May 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Ionizer

    Heather Guest

    "FromTheRafters" <!> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Yes, I can agree with that. But "virusproof" is not the same as
    > "there aren't as many or likely to be as many viruses for...". The
    > Linux OS is still able to support individually - and with sufficient
    > number globally - viruses. They may not be the same as viruses
    > that target Windows environments, but the potential for problems
    > still exists - and also, as the number of machines running that OS
    > increases, so does the risk.
    >
    > The attitude that "it can't happen here" usually contributes to it
    > happening. Linux users need to get a grip on reality and treat
    > malware as something that concerns them too.


    Tell the Mac users to do the same thing. I had to practically break my
    daughter's fingers to get her to put Norton on her G-Mac.....but she uses
    Yahoo for her mail, so is relatively safe.

    Cheers.....Heather
    >
    >
     
    Heather, May 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Ionizer

    ParrotRob Guest

    "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    >
    > > "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    > > news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...
    > >> Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
    > >>
    > >> > Let's all go to our C: Windows Directory after we have made all of

    our
    > >> > files in this directory visible. Tell the group the names of the
    > >> > Folders and Files which show as a light color and let's discuss this.
    > >> > Dangerous code is always discovered in this directory, but you need

    to
    > >> > enable the Windows Features to (view or show) all Hidden Files. If

    you
    > >> > don't know how to perform this function then this will tell many

    others
    > >> > what your skill level is and that is important to hackers to know

    this.
    > >> >
    > >> > Tracker
    > >>
    > >> Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !

    > >
    > > Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek

    comment
    > > poking a little fun at linuxheads?

    >
    >
    > No, he's right. Basically.
    >


    OK, you're right, linux is, in fact, "virusproof". And the Titanic was
    unsinkable.

    There are all sorts of virii, worms and trojans out there. Most of them are
    Apache- or FTP-related, for sure, but to claim linux as "virusproof" is a
    little over the top. It probably also has a little to do with the relative
    (versus Windows) non-existance of linux out there. Put linux on 500+
    million desktops and see how fast the relatively small infection numbers
    associated with things like Slapper grow. And how fast new exploits show
    up.
     
    ParrotRob, May 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Ionizer

    TisMe Guest

    ParrotRob wrote:
    : "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message
    : news:p...
    :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    ::
    ::: "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    ::: news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...
    :::: Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
    <snip the tracker BS>

    ::::
    :::: Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
    :::
    ::: Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek
    ::: comment poking a little fun at linuxheads?
    ::
    ::
    :: No, he's right. Basically.
    ::
    :
    : OK, you're right, linux is, in fact, "virusproof". And the Titanic
    : was unsinkable.
    :
    : There are all sorts of virii, worms and trojans out there. Most of
    : them are Apache- or FTP-related, for sure, but to claim linux as
    : "virusproof" is a little over the top. It probably also has a little
    : to do with the relative (versus Windows) non-existance of linux out
    : there. Put linux on 500+ million desktops and see how fast the
    : relatively small infection numbers associated with things like
    : Slapper grow. And how fast new exploits show up.

    Correct me if I am wrong on this. Windows is running the same on every
    machine.
    Except for the software they have on their PC that is the only difference
    from one
    Windows box to the next. Linux is different, first their probably are not
    two
    Linux machines running the same except maybe a close relationship of them
    that may
    be running in a office setting. Linux doesn't have a autorun feature for
    anything that
    may enter the box. So for a virus to propagate from one file to the next is
    almost impossible.
    Also Linux has a great deal of distributions, for which the users of Linux
    could be running
    any one of them. This makes it harder for a virus writer to write for Linux
    and carry out a
    mass virus attack on Linux. There are just to many combinations of Linux
    out there.
    It doesn't mean Linux is immune to a virus. it just means it's harder for
    a virus writer to write,
    and distribute a virus that will do the same damage as if they had wrote
    one for Windows.
    Windows biggest pitfall is the fact that files can auto run on their own
    with no help from a user.
    If Windows didn't have this feature, then a virus wouldn't be able to infect
    computers as easily.
    So is it safe to say that if Bill Gates did away with the auto run feature
    of Windows, that Windows
    boxes would be safer? How about the auto send in email too? I kind of
    think that the auto
    send feature would be handled a little bit different because a virus doesn't
    need to use Outlook Express
    in order to mass mail. They would have to come up with a feature for the
    ports used to send email right?
     
    TisMe, May 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Ionizer

    Leythos Guest

    In article <APasc.30981$>,
    says...
    > Correct me if I am wrong on this. Windows is running the same on every
    > machine. Except for the software they have on their PC that is the only
    > difference from one Windows box to the next.


    OK, you're wrong. I would easily venture a guess that none of my Windows
    PC's are configured the same way as most other windows users PCs. As for
    the available installed source/apps that come on (lets pick on distro)
    Windows XP Professional, I have my choice of what I want to install, my
    choice of what services I want to run, and my choice of different
    security methods to enact on the system. I have different levels of user
    accounts and I even have a choice of which account or group can execute
    critical OS type apps on the system.

    Now, I could stay that most Red Hat installs by non-technical types, are
    about the same on every machine except the hardware. I could also say
    that about any OS, that with the exception of technical types, the
    public will install ANY OS in the default mode and as such have the
    default services.

    I think you need to look at more than just "Auto-Run" there are things
    like processing a file based on what windows "thinks" it should run with
    - as an example a .jpg file that contains code - windows apps will run
    the code instead of showing some invalid graphic. There are many things
    that Windows does to make life easy for users, much like the MAC group,
    but I would put more of the blame on ISP's that don't block inbound to
    the "residential" users. Windows had all of these problems before the
    major players started delivering cheap/high-speed internet service to
    the common home user.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, May 24, 2004
    #17
  18. "TisMe" <> wrote in message news:APasc.30981$...
    > ParrotRob wrote:
    > : "Fred Garvin" <> wrote in message
    > : news:p...
    > :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
    > ::
    > ::: "patrick Lottier" <ranar@lea.3dfree.org> wrote in message
    > ::: news:pan.2004.05.21.06.33.24.876670@lea.3dfree.org...
    > :::: Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
    > <snip the tracker BS>
    >
    > ::::
    > :::: Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
    > :::
    > ::: Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek
    > ::: comment poking a little fun at linuxheads?
    > ::
    > ::
    > :: No, he's right. Basically.
    > ::
    > :
    > : OK, you're right, linux is, in fact, "virusproof". And the Titanic
    > : was unsinkable.
    > :
    > : There are all sorts of virii, worms and trojans out there. Most of
    > : them are Apache- or FTP-related, for sure, but to claim linux as
    > : "virusproof" is a little over the top. It probably also has a little
    > : to do with the relative (versus Windows) non-existance of linux out
    > : there. Put linux on 500+ million desktops and see how fast the
    > : relatively small infection numbers associated with things like
    > : Slapper grow. And how fast new exploits show up.
    >
    > Correct me if I am wrong on this. Windows is running the same on every
    > machine.


    Wrong. Windows is running and doing whatever it takes to make
    the machine *appear* the same to any application software it runs.
    It supplies an abstraction called a "virtual machine" for whatever
    the application needs.

    > Except for the software they have on their PC that is the only difference
    > from one Windows box to the next.


    There is a certain amount of "sameness" about Windows machines
    (partially due to software application bundling) that is a large part
    of the problem.

    > Linux is different, first their probably are not two Linux machines
    > running the same except maybe a close relationship of them that
    > may be running in a office setting.


    Yes, this is one thing that I see as an advantage as things now stand.
    However, Linux is going down the same road to some extent with
    distros bundling applications. Unfortunately, the way to get more
    users on Linux is to compromise on this advantage that they now
    enjoy.

    > Linux doesn't have a autorun feature for anything that may enter
    > the box. So for a virus to propagate from one file to the next is
    > almost impossible.


    A lot depends on the applications being used, most vulnerabilities
    apply to the applications rather than the OS itself in both Windows
    and Linux.

    > Also Linux has a great deal of distributions, for which the users of Linux
    > could be running any one of them. This makes it harder for a virus writer
    > to write for Linux and carry out a mass virus attack on Linux.


    I don't thik that the Linux virus problem will ever be as large as the
    Windows virus problem, mostly due to this "sameness" issue, but
    consider that most Linux users will have source code files within
    the users purview. You may see types of viruses that haven't seen
    much success, with Windows having the greater marketshare, start
    to crop up. There doesn't seem to me to be that much difference
    between a virus that writes script into interpretable text files and
    one that writes script into source code files that eventually get to
    be compiled and executed. Wasn't there already a virus that did
    "infect" at the source code level?

    > There are just to many combinations of Linux out there. It doesn't
    > mean Linux is immune to a virus. it just means it's harder for a virus
    > writer to write, and distribute a virus that will do the same damage
    > as if they had wrote one for Windows.


    ....and they need such a challenge - there have been far too many
    lame "day-zero" mass-mailers being written and distributed via
    Windows' oh-so-easy malware hosting boxen.

    > Windows biggest pitfall is the fact that files can auto run on their own
    > with no help from a user.
    > If Windows didn't have this feature, then a virus wouldn't be able to infect
    > computers as easily.


    Most of this is application based, not really the OS. I wouldn't be
    too surprised to find Linux apps doing stupid things either.

    > So is it safe to say that if Bill Gates did away with the auto run feature
    > of Windows, that Windows boxes would be safer?


    What Linux zealots refer to as an autorun feature is actually an exploit
    of a vulnerability. Linux is not without vulnerabilities, although arguably
    Linux users are better about keeping their software current.

    ....this too may change as more clueless users are drawn to Linux.

    > How about the auto send in email too?


    Auto send?

    > I kind of think that the auto send feature would be handled a little
    > bit different because a virus doesn't need to use Outlook Express
    > in order to mass mail.


    Worms are another story. Viruses don't necessarily send
    themselves anywhere.

    > They would have to come up with a feature for the
    > ports used to send email right?


    I think Windows XP was the first Microsoft OS to bundle a firewall
    application with the OS distribution - and at that it is only stateful
    incoming control. It is not the OS's fault if the users don't feel the
    need or want of a firewall that controls outgoing traffic.
     
    FromTheRafters, May 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Ionizer

    CJM Guest

    "TisMe" <> wrote in message
    news:APasc.30981$...
    >
    > Correct me if I am wrong on this. Windows is running the same on every
    > machine.
    > Except for the software they have on their PC that is the only difference
    > from one
    > Windows box to the next. Linux is different, first their probably are

    not
    > two
    > Linux machines running the same except maybe a close relationship of them
    > that may
    > be running in a office setting. Linux doesn't have a autorun feature for
    > anything that
    > may enter the box. So for a virus to propagate from one file to the next

    is
    > almost impossible.
    > Also Linux has a great deal of distributions, for which the users of Linux
    > could be running
    > any one of them. This makes it harder for a virus writer to write for

    Linux
    > and carry out a
    > mass virus attack on Linux. There are just to many combinations of Linux
    > out there.
    > It doesn't mean Linux is immune to a virus. it just means it's harder

    for
    > a virus writer to write,
    > and distribute a virus that will do the same damage as if they had wrote
    > one for Windows.
    > Windows biggest pitfall is the fact that files can auto run on their own
    > with no help from a user.
    > If Windows didn't have this feature, then a virus wouldn't be able to

    infect
    > computers as easily.
    > So is it safe to say that if Bill Gates did away with the auto run feature
    > of Windows, that Windows
    > boxes would be safer? How about the auto send in email too? I kind of
    > think that the auto
    > send feature would be handled a little bit different because a virus

    doesn't
    > need to use Outlook Express
    > in order to mass mail. They would have to come up with a feature for the
    > ports used to send email right?
    >
    >


    Autorun isn't the problem with Windows.

    Having hundreds of millions of largely non-technical users, who dont patch
    their machines, dont run up-to-date AV software & firewalls, and who insist
    on clicking everything that enters there inbox, especially when labelled "I
    am a virus. Click me", is the real problem.

    Should Linux ever mature enough to make to the massamrket then it will face
    some of the same problems. Expecially when the changes required would be to
    make it much more user-friendly - which often means automation, which is one
    of your criticisms of Windows.

    Most Linux users are higher up the technical food chain so they can handle
    Linux, but Aunty Mavis uses two hands to control the mouse... she wouldnt
    know a compiler if she fell over one. So she'll be upgrading to Linux right
    after hell freezes over.

    We all know Windows (& MS as a whole) isnt perfect, but if the solution was
    as simple as moving across to Linux, we would all have done it now...

    CJM
     
    CJM, May 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Ionizer

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:33:26 +0200, patrick Lottier
    > >
    > >Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !

    >
    > If linux is virus proof then why do they make virus scanners for them?


    Here is a link to the SUSE site where they list a LOT of security
    problems with Linux:

    http://www.suse.de/de/security/announcements/index.html

    It's not the OS, it's knowing how to configure ANY OS to be more secure.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, May 31, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. KerplunKuK

    Secure and non secure warnings

    KerplunKuK, Aug 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    565
    Blinky the Shark
    Aug 24, 2004
  2. Miss Mary
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,470
    sean.archer
    Sep 21, 2007
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    617
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    753
  5. cade

    Secure Auditor secure your windows

    cade, Apr 28, 2008, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    522
Loading...

Share This Page