Text 14084, 88 rader
Skriven 2010-03-24 13:19:00 av WAYNE CHIRNSIDE (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av TOM WALKER
Ärende: alright, alright, alright
=================================
-=> TOM WALKER wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-

 WC>That is correct.
 WC>I didn't actually do that but it wouldn't have mattered to me because I'd
 WC>always wonder if there's some
 WC>residual fragment of that malware left over.

 WC>I mean for heaven's sake it clobbered F-prot's fpscan and I've never had
 WC>trouble with that before.
 WC>I downloaded a clean copy and it corrupted that one too.

 WC>Nasty one that one was.

 TW> So al the PROPOGANDA of Linux being Imune to viruses and other funny
 TW> Stuff is not really True any more!!!



Not immune, but very highly resistant.
I'll run F-prot as daemon in memory from now on.

I've only four instances of intrusion in 2 1/2 years of operating Linux.

One logic bomb caught by F-prot.

One MBR virus infector due to my having Windows on the slave drive.

One chrootkit due to my being tired and operating online as root in error,
always a BAD idea.

And the latest socially engineered one that hit me through my own naiveta.

Most of those online I.Q. tests are actually ads for cellular phone service but
this bad boy was a real nightmare.

IF the daemon for f-prot isn't too CPU intensive I'll run it as daemon even if
I have to kill other processes.

All in all Linux is highly resistant but absolutely not invulnerable.

OXX or Snow Leopard is also highly resistant. 

Maurice is the pro on this stuff and offers some really good advice.

Him and that Kremlin form the Gremlin fellow.
Sadly Paul Rogers and Martin Atkins no longer seem to post here as they are 
far sharper than I as well.

When and if I get as far advanced as Maurice I'd expect to be totally immune
and that means no javascript,
and a separate user account for sensitive sites I cannot have compromised as
well as other measures I've taken.

I knew about this last but foolishly put it off.

The moderator of Cyber Danger seems to underate the threat but it IS real
though not prevalent.

For a time I largely shared his view on this one issue.

When I tried to provide relavent information it once again as always went right
to personal attack dispite my best efforts 
to avoid same by NEVER initiating a post to that individual the last few years.

I'm now banned from that echo after provokation such as calling the woman I
love a truly dispicable
name.

No big deal as it's another dead echo he presides over.

I'm even aware my civil posts to other echos are somewhat unwelcome as they
invariably draw fire from this same 
individual I've repeatedly asked NOT to post to me however he seems obsessed
with provoking me.

Essentially a cyber stalker.
A very obsessive one.

Fortunately this echo has a rather reasonable moderator.

Scott Little isn't it?

The way some people get their jollies, incomprehensible to me.

OO-RAH!
 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)