Text 4160, 168 rader
Skriven 2005-10-24 01:01:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHAEL STERN
Ärende: software for linspire
=============================

123c7e29b9fa
linux



Hello Michael -

You have obviously put some time into your reply and I
respect that even though I do not agree with your premise
nor your conclusion.  My information tells me otherwise.

CA>> Linux (and other *nix) have _never_ been "immune to
CA>> malicious code". That is linux folklore. 

MS> You are missing the point. There is a significant
MS> difference between the existance of malicious code and its
MS> ability to do any harm. 

MS> I know how to use google as well. I try to avoid anti-virus
MS> software companies when doing research into viruses, much
MS> like I wouldn't read a review of a microsoft product on the
MS> microsoft website. 

I understand your philosophy but if we try to avoid NASA when
researching the US space shuttle we do ourselves a disservice.
The 'trick' is to be a skeptic and not accept any ONE source's
opinion but rather look for multiple sources that agree with
each other. 

MS> That said, I managed to find a few virus/worms that exist
MS> for linux. They break down into two categories: 

MS> 1 - Vulnerability Exploits 

There were others prior to 1998.

"Before Slapper, Linux viruses had been around for a while.
Bliss, a virus which appeared in 1997, was the first to
demonstrate that Linux was vulnerable to viruses. And once
Bliss opened the door, other types of malware followed." 

MS> Worm.Linux.Adm, discovered spring 1998. Exploits a
MS> vulnerability with versions of BIND earlier than 8.4.
MS> Current version of bind is 9.2. 

MS> Worm.Linux.Cheeze, relies on the target being already
MS> compromised by a worm called "Ramen" 

MS> Worm.Linux.Ramen, discovered January, 2001. Affected
MS> systems: Redhat 6.2 and 7.0. In fact, the virus was
MS> discovered after redhat had already addressed the
MS> vulnerability that the worm exploits. 

MS> Worm.Linux.Mighty, discovered July, 2002. Exploits a
MS> vulnerability with versions of apache module mod_ssl
MS> earlier than 0.9.6e. Current version: 1.3.0 

MS> Worm.Linux.Slapper takes advantage of the exact same flaw
MS> in mod_ssl as Worm.Linux.Mighty. 

MS> 2 - Malware 

MS> Linux.OSF.8759 - unless run as root, can only infect
MS> binaries installed without root ownership. Not something a
MS> linux user is likely to do. Backdoor capabilities are
MS> meaningless unless the firewall is configured by someone
MS> with a death wish. 

MS> Linux.RST - see Linux.OSF.8759 

MS> You alluded to "hundreds" of known viruses. All of them
MS> rely on conditions that no longer exist in current linux
MS> binaries and/or a very poorly configured firewall, just
MS> like the ones I cited above. 

Many of the virus mentioned that attack Windows OS are
attacking earlier versions of Windows. Are you saying the
vulnerability of earlier versions of linux don't count against
linux or are you thinking everyone is using the latest and
greatest linux distribution with all the 'fixes' in place? 

MS> As I said earlier, NO computer is safe from an ignorant
MS> user. Even so, linux remains considerably LESS vulnerable
MS> due to the nature of its security model. 

Security by obscurity? 

MS> Of particular merit is the fundamental difference between
MS> Linux and that quaint alternative, Windows. Open source has
MS> one tremendous advantage over closed source. Namely, peer
MS> review of source code. Potential vulnerabilites are spotted
MS> sooner. It has been argued that it is actually easier to
MS> craft an exploit when you have the source code right in
MS> front of you, and the traditional counter argument is that
MS> the vulnerability is normally corrected before an actual
MS> exploit can be developed. Both are correct. 

I have at one time in my life out-programmed the
"professionals" and wrote code they all said was impossible to
write. I am willing to entertain the possibility that at times
a dedicated individual can out perform the corporations but
that is a one in a million. I do not believe that open source
volunteers can out-gun the army of programmers Microsoft can
put into motion once they decide it is in their best interests
(which I think they _have_ decided). 

MS> I am convinced that the reason so many more viruses exist
MS> for windows has a lot to do with anti-virus companies
MS> themselves developing variants to known viruses in order to
MS> be the first to claim to have a fix for them. Before you
MS> dismiss that as paranoia, there are several documented
MS> cases where that has happened. I cannot think of the
MS> company by name, but I believe they were based in Israel. 

I have advanced that proposition many times and have been
ridiculed for doing so. I continue to believe that the
anti-virus companies do promote the problem if in no other way
than their willingness to put the source code for virus out
there where the kiddies can find it, modify it, and re-release
it. 

MS> In any event, the argument should not be about the quantity
MS> of different examples of malware. Rather, it should focus
MS> on the viability of said malware. Regardless of your
MS> willingness to accept it, linux simply is not a viable
MS> platform for virus infection and propagation. That is a
MS> fact. 

According to this study you are wrong. 

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10035 

------------- 

"A 12-month study by a leading digital security company
concludes that Mac OS X and Open Source BSD OS's are the
world's safest computing environments. 

Mi2g analysed 235,907 successful digital breaches against
permanently connected computers across the world over 12-months
to arrive at its conclusions. 

The study reveals Linux to have become the most breached
computing environment, accounting for 65.64 per cent of all
recorded attacks. The number of successful attacks against
Microsoft Windows-based machines accounted for 25.19 per cent
of all recorded breaches. However, the number of successful
attacks against BSD and OS X systems is a tiny 4.82 per cent." 

------------- 

MS> In all fairness, windows is moving in that direction, but
MS> has a way to go. 

I'm not arguing FOR Windows or against GNU/Linux, I'm only
arguing in favor of accepting reality. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)