??? 11/16/07 19:14 Read: times |
#147092 - Linux vs Windows Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Craig Steiner said:
The amount of spam you receive has zero to do with the operating system. Email is an application level issue. Jeff Post said:
In Windows, merely receiving certain spam can infect a machine. And spam is an irritation, though no so much as a virus is. I'm not going to get into that discussion other than to say I've never had my Windows machine infected by an email. But even if it's possible, it does not refute my point that the number of spams you receive has nothing to do with the OS you use which is what you implied earlier. Craig Steiner said:
A virus that is executed by a non-root user can do quite a bit of damage anyway. Jeff Post said:
Not if you set up an account used only to access the internet. That's about as convenient as a car with no doors. Jeff Post said:
You said in your other post that the only machine you ever had compromised was a Linux machine. I think it far more likely you had a configuration error. You want to explain that logic to me? And do you want to explain that if I, a geek, can have a configuration error that allowed my Linux box to be rooted, how exactly Linux is going to be any more secure than Windows when used by idiots with far less computer knowledge than me? Craig Steiner said:
If the goal of the virus is to build a botnet, they can do that just as easily on Linux from a non-root account since non-root accounts can access the Internet, too. Jeff Post said:
Really. And just how do they build this botnet? I done quite a bit of research on it and never encountered reports of such a thing happening in Linux. Windows, yes. Frequently. My Linux box was compromised and used to shovel spam; it could have just as easily hopped on the net, phoned home to somewhere, and received bot instructions. They had root access but they could have just as easily done it with a non-root account since my non-root accounts also have outbound Internet access. And that's the norm even in the Linux world. The fact that it might not be as common as compromising a Windows machine is because it's more profitable to target the OS that's on 90% of the machines out there. Craig Steiner said:
Or if the virus is just designed to collect user information, the virus can just as easily go through the user's personal directory and collect personal information. Jeff Post said:
Don't access the internet using an account that contains your personal info. 1. Very few people, even in the Linux world, partition their user accounts that strictly. 2. Personal information could easily be in your Internet-using account. As more and more productivity becomes web-based, that's only going to become more an more probable. 3. Since we can assume that most viruses, etc. come from the Internet, they are going to infect your Internet accounts that have Internet access. Even if you partition your accounts so that only a single account has Internet access, all you've done is protected your personal data. Your box can still be used for botnet and spambot purposes. 4. If your box is rooted, your box is as dangerous as a Windows box. Craig Steiner said:
I haven't noticed any significant difference in install times between Linux and Windows when running on hardware it recognizes. Jeff Post said:
I have. Linux - about an hour tops. Windows - about half a day when you include installing applications (which is automatic in Linux). Yeah, right. Linux never installed all the applications I needed--and installing the applications I needed that weren't included in the distribution was always something I cringed and crossed my fingers would actually work. The most important ones I needed worked. Some applications that I wanted to try failed to install or compile and I gave up. Craig Steiner said:
Now I have an outbound firewall prohibition on SMTP to prevent any of my machines from doing that. Email is sent on a different port that my password-protected SMTP relay honors. But no spammer is going to use my Linux box for spamming again. Jeff Post said:
:-) Try accomplishing that with a Windows box. I didn't accomplish it with a Linux box, either. I disabled outbound SMTP at the external firewall so neither Linux or Windows can send spam regardless of how they are compromised. Craig Steiner said:
And if I had a dollar for every Linux user that thought that he couldn't be. Jeff Post said:
You'd have enough to buy dinner at Denny's ;-) Right, because you've just estimated the entire installed userbase of desktop Linux. ;) Regards, Craig Steiner |
Topic | Author | Date |
Says it better than I can | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
re 'evangelism' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So limited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I believe it's obvious | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If YOU would read what I posted | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Wine and VirtualBox | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
and you suggest that for DEVELOPMENT??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Don't know about Linux but love your D52.EXE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What makes Linux less vunerable? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Design | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
that's great, but ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, it is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Huh? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re: Huh? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Linux vs Windows | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What sort of Linux do you have, Craig? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Oh yea ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
True | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Looks like... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Security | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
AMEN! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Everybody should use linux! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Linux attacks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not Targets | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Caveat Emptor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
email vulnerability | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Kleinstein | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Linux is the "solution" ... for now ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Concur | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Layers | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Perhaps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Separation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If Linux was an airline | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Keep reading | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Bad logic | 01/01/70 00:00 |