Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by opium, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. opium

    opium Guest

    This may sound like a silly question, but until I get some kind of
    answer to this, I will not be able to rest.... Is it possible for my
    digital camera to be effected by a computer that has a virus or 50
    viruses? Exuse my ignorance.
    opium, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Theoretically, anything is possible. On the other hand, I've
    never heard of that being a problem with a camera.

    You can relax at least enough to take a nap now and then, the
    boogy man won't get your camera. ;-)

    On the another hand though, the computer than has 50 viruses
    might well lose or otherwise destroy your archived images.
    Floyd Davidson, Feb 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. opium

    Mark² Guest

    Your camera is safe.
    The images you've saved on that computer are not.
    Mark², Feb 10, 2006
  4. opium

    Martin Brown Guest

    That's not necessarily quite true. The camera hardware is certainly safe
    from PC viruses, but the contents of the media are not.

    When the camera is mounted as a removable drive the media contents could
    be wiped clean by a virus that targets images like JPG or TIFF files. A
    few PC viruses try to delete certain file types on certain dates.

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Feb 10, 2006
  5. opium

    Mark² Guest

    I thought of that, but I don't think that's what he was fearing...
    Mark², Feb 10, 2006
  6. opium

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Yet another reason to use linux.
    Neil Ellwood, Feb 10, 2006
  7. Linux is not immune to viruses. It is simply not targetted as much
    because virus writers want to maximize their impact. The more people
    who use Linux, the more common Linux attacks will become.

    What the OPs message really implies is "Yet another reason to take
    basic precautions".
    Eric Schreiber, Feb 10, 2006
  8. opium

    Dave Cohen Guest

    In my case I would have to heartily agree using Linux would keep me
    completely safe from virus infection.
    I installed a copy of Red Hat 7.x that came with Linux for Dummies.
    Installed it in it's own partion. Ran ok, got the monitor working. Never did
    get the modem, sound card or anything else to work. Got a little tired of
    having to reboot into that horrible xp thing to search the web for drivers.
    Eventually gave and never want to see Linux again unless it came
    pre-installed on a new machine giving me the option to run either that or
    winxp. No I know why they called the book Linux for Dummies.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Feb 10, 2006
  9. Wrong. The mechanism simply is not effective with Linux. Your
    statement that virus writers want to maximize their impact is
    very true, and there is *no* way to get a significant impact
    from writing a virus for Linux. Whereas with Windows some
    significant percentage of all systems exposed will in fact be
    infected, with Linux a virus would be lucky to infect *any*
    machine, never mind a significant number.

    That is *not* to say that there are not ways to attack Linux and
    other unix based systems. It just says that a "virus" is *not*
    an effective mechanism of attack on those systems. Fortunately
    for users of unix based OS's, none of the mechanisms for
    attacking them are anything near as efficient as the virus
    mechanism that plagues Windows.
    And of course on of the *best* precautions possible is to run an
    OS designed to be secure rather than one that was designed without
    a clue about security. That is why Linux, another unix based OS,
    is recommended and Windows is not.
    Floyd Davidson, Feb 10, 2006
  10. I hate to be so unkind, but you just demonstrated why they write
    books like that too.
    Floyd Davidson, Feb 10, 2006
  11. opium

    Joey Guest

    Not a dumb question, yes it is possible but rare. Someone can hack the
    firmware that updates cameras. That's why it's important to only get
    your firmware updates only from the manufacturers web site. Of course
    the hacker can only do things that would mess someones camera up, not
    spread worms/viruses from one camera to another.

    Joey, Feb 11, 2006
  12. opium

    x2lls Guest

    For a truly virus free OS, you really ought to see ICL (unfortunately
    now Fujitsu)'s VME system. You probably haven't heard of it, but it
    really is one of the best ever design OS's EVER!!!! You will NEVER be
    able to get viruses on it , simply down to the internal ACR levels
    incorporated. Conceived in the mid 70's, by adults , not graduates who
    think a bit of VB here, a bit of C there makes them 'experts'. It has
    continually been improved. In fact, British Gas use it for their
    billing system and it processes at least 60 accounts PER SECOND!.
    And I'm not talking about the 'other' VME which is what you'll find on
    most search engines, which is a BUS.
    x2lls, Feb 11, 2006
  13. Several points awarded for the enthusiastic, knee-jerk Linux enthusiast
    reply. None awarded for critical thinking.

    The most succesful mechanism is people who don't take, or even
    understand, basic precautions. While Linux users do tend to be more
    technically savvy than Windows users (they have to be, after all), I
    assure you that there are idiots even among Linux geeks.

    Which isn't a reflection of any particular inherent characteristic of
    Linux, but rather of its comparative lack of popularity. As the
    popularity of Linux continues to grow, so will its vulnerability.

    Perhaps you and I have different definitions for the term "immune"?
    Because here, you certainly seem to be agreeing that it is, in fact,
    not immune, despite your earily "bullshit" response.

    That is a *good* precaution, but hardly the best one. The best
    precaution is simply to not be stupid.

    By way of example: I've been using MS operationg systems since DOS 3.1.
    I ran a free, public access dial-up BBS system for several years,
    moving 100 MB of files daily. I've had an always-on broadband
    connection to the net for at least five years now, and pretty much
    lived on the net via dial-up for several years prior to that. Guess how
    many virus infections I've had. Yup, that's right, not even one. Why?
    Because I'm not stupid. By taking basic, simple precautions, I've
    avoided any virus infection.

    Your 'best' precaution fails in another way, which is that it isn't
    practical. A good many computer users must use Windows, either because
    of corporate edicts, need for specific applications, or lack of
    required technical skills. For them, running Linux isn't an option.
    Eric Schreiber, Feb 11, 2006
  14. opium

    Paul Allen Guest

    This is technically true, although it is also true that viruses have
    much more difficulty propagating among Linux hosts because Unix lacks
    the design flaws that make Windows such a good virus propagator.
    Linux viruses are not just seldom seen propagating in the wild, they're
    virtually *never* seen propagating in the wild. One has to ask oneself
    why that is. Most Windows users run with administrator privileges, so
    a successful virus owns the machine. And Windows is saddled with the
    bone-head "click on anything to execute it" metaphor. And Windows comes
    bundled with the unfortunate bags of vulnerabilities, Internet Explorer,
    Outlook, and IIS.
    Yup. Even though Unix is considered a high-status hack, it's a lot
    easier to just keep on exploiting the same old Windows design errors
    over and over. To infect Linux, they have to actually find a new
    bug and exploit it before the community can patch it. What's the
    point when they can reliably just turn the same old crank and make
    a big splash on Windows?
    Perhaps, but they are not likely to become more successful because
    the platform is not virus-friendly like Windows is.
    Well, no. It's more like, "Yet another reason to use an OS that
    doesn't need so many band-aids in order to be secure."

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Feb 11, 2006
  15. opium

    Paul Allen Guest

    Did you complain to the makers of the modem or sound chips about keeping
    the details of their hardware secret? Why not? It's not Linux's fault
    that some vendors think secrecy sells more hardware.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Feb 11, 2006
  16. opium

    Dave Cohen Guest

    No problem and those books aren't really worth the money anyway. I got the
    package for the Linux cd set. In all fairness, I suspect had I got a later
    release I might have had more luck, but my heart wasn't really in it. As far
    as viruses, most users won't be bothered if they keep system updated and
    take normal precautions. I wasn't knocking linux as such, I believe it's
    great for server apps.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Feb 11, 2006
  17. opium

    Paul Allen Guest

    Really? What search engine runs on VME bus hardware? Last I heard,
    Google was packing their racks with 1U commodity Intel boxes running
    Linux. Anything else costs too much.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Feb 11, 2006
  18. opium

    x2lls Guest

    You completely missed my point, and you are changing the tone of this
    The subject matter here is viruses. I said VME is an OS of high end
    business systems designed in such a way as to eradicate the
    possibility of being infected
    x2lls, Feb 11, 2006
  19. opium

    x2lls Guest

    All systems have bugs so a band-aid is simply another module added to
    ensure improvement. Most systems go through continual improvement.
    x2lls, Feb 11, 2006
  20. opium

    Paul Allen Guest

    Yup. Floyd's basically correct, but his single-word response
    did not explain why he's right.
    Sorry, but this is wrong. The most successful virus propagation
    mechanism is an OS that propagates viruses by design. If the OS
    is resistant to the particular threat posed by viruses, the user
    doesn't have to think much about "basic precautions" the way a
    Windows user does. People will probably always be a weak link.
    That's why the OS should be able to take care of itself.
    Nonsense. Linux (and Unix in general) is inherently less
    vulnerable to viruses than Windows. Changes in Linux popularity
    cannot alter its vulnerability.
    Nope. What's happening is that you're exposing your ignorance of
    the different types of possible attacks. A virus is a bit of code
    that attaches itself to a program, loosely speaking. It needs
    help to propagate, and this help is not readily available on a
    Unix system. A Windows virus can count on the presence of Outlook
    and IE to help it propagate.

    Floyd was probably thinking about worms, which are network-based
    attacks. Both Windows and Linux listen on network ports and can
    be attacked by that route. The difference is that Windows is
    closer to a monoculture than Linux. When an attacker finds a
    Windows box, he knows that he's looking at one of a small number
    of possible configurations. There's a lot more variability with
    Linux. Both can be attacked, but successful attacks are more
    likely on Windows.
    It could be argued that running an OS that's known to be insecure
    *is* stupid. Stop doing that and kill two birds with one stone.
    Wouldn't it be easier to just use an OS that doesn't need all those
    The lack of certain applications is fixable. Corporate edicts can
    change when there is a compelling business case. Using Linux
    doesn't take any more technical skills than using Windows, and
    neither does administering it.

    The business case is compelling. The rest will follow in good time.
    Microsoft will eventually be left in the corner to gnaw the ends of
    its old plots.

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Feb 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.