Viruses?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before reporting issues in this section, you must read the following topic:
Before reporting issues in this section, you must read the following topic:
- Viliam
- Translator
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
- Contact:
In ancient times, EXE files were majority of the "malware". These days, AFAIK, scripts are more popular. Scripts are easy to write. Scripts are able to do most of what EXE files can do, but they can also be included in web pages, HTML e-mails, etc.Emmanovi wrote:They make everything EXE files.
For example "automatic preview" in MS Outlook will start a malicious script in HTML e-mail, but would not start an EXE file without user interaction.
- Polaris
- Posts: 104
- Joined: March 25th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Invincible Cyclones Of FrostWinds
- Contact:
The main reason is that (sadly) LINUX is not widespread as windows, and that is a _real_ problem when all you want is to infect the most possible pCs.Emmanovi wrote:Yep Scott, definetly get Linux.
One of the main reasons for this is virus/spyware/adware makers don't think about/understand/know linux. They make everything EXE files. So unless you have Wine set to auto-excecute, you should be safe in that area.
(AFAIK).
Don't underestimate the knowledge and willpower of malware writers...
Standing With So Cold A Heart... Watching The Death Of The Sun...
It is more than that. Currently typical *nix uses open files using commands that reference the files, rather than running files and having the OS choose how to open them. This makes it significantly harder to get tricked into running a trojan. However, as Linux gets used by the masses it will probably be used like windows where people commonly double click on files they have found using a file browser and they will get burnt pretty much the way they do under Windows.Polaris wrote:
The main reason is that (sadly) LINUX is not widespread as windows, and that is a _real_ problem when all you want is to infect the most possible pCs.
Don't underestimate the knowledge and willpower of malware writers... ;)
two third of the internet are powered by apache server (wether on linux, unix workstations or mac os x). I think that's widespread enoughThe main reason is that (sadly) LINUX is not widespread as windows, and that is a _real_ problem when all you want is to infect the most possible pCs.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus4 wrote:Isn't Microsoft Corporation's market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn't have a virus problem?
Not at all. This question is virus pundits' pons asinorum: If they can't think past this fallacy, don't even try to reason with them, as they're hopelessly mired in rationalisation.
The speaker's supposition is that virus writers will (like himself/herself) ignore anything the least bit unfamiliar, and attack only the most-common user software and operating systems, thus explaining why Unix viruses are essentially unknown in the field. This is doubly fallacious: 1. It ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen.
2. Even aside from that, it completely fails to account for observed fact: Assume that only 1% of Internet-reachable hosts run x86 Linux (a conservative figure). Assume that only one virus writer out of 1000 targets Unixes. Then, given the near-instant communication across the Net that at this writing is blitzing my Linux Web server with dozens of futile probes for the Microsoft "Nimda" vulnerability per second, the product of that one virus writer's work should be a nagging problem on Linux machines everywhere  and he/she will be working very hard to achieve that, given the bragging rights he/she would gain. Yet, it's not there. Where is it?
The answer is that, for various reasons discussed in prior essays, such code is very easy to write, but  given minimally competent system maintenance (including the automated kind, cited below)  completely impractical to propagate. And likely to remain so.
-
- Posts: 266
- Joined: October 21st, 2005, 4:24 pm
- Location: In a galaxy, far, far away........
I always thought that people who don't know much about computers (ie those who click on ads and download things) run windows (usually), so they are a prime target, as it is (or was) very vunerable, and doomed if a malicious EXE file is run by the user...Quentin wrote:two third of the internet are powered by apache server (wether on linux, unix workstations or mac os x). I think that's widespread enoughThe main reason is that (sadly) LINUX is not widespread as windows, and that is a _real_ problem when all you want is to infect the most possible pCs.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus4 wrote: Isn't Microsoft Corporation's market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn't have a virus problem?
Not at all. This question is virus pundits' pons asinorum: If they can't think past this fallacy, don't even try to reason with them, as they're hopelessly mired in rationalisation.
The speaker's supposition is that virus writers will (like himself/herself) ignore anything the least bit unfamiliar, and attack only the most-common user software and operating systems, thus explaining why Unix viruses are essentially unknown in the field. This is doubly fallacious: 1. It ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen.
2. Even aside from that, it completely fails to account for observed fact: Assume that only 1% of Internet-reachable hosts run x86 Linux (a conservative figure). Assume that only one virus writer out of 1000 targets Unixes. Then, given the near-instant communication across the Net that at this writing is blitzing my Linux Web server with dozens of futile probes for the Microsoft "Nimda" vulnerability per second, the product of that one virus writer's work should be a nagging problem on Linux machines everywhere  and he/she will be working very hard to achieve that, given the bragging rights he/she would gain. Yet, it's not there. Where is it?
The answer is that, for various reasons discussed in prior essays, such code is very easy to write, but  given minimally competent system maintenance (including the automated kind, cited below)  completely impractical to propagate. And likely to remain so.
If white was black and black was white, what would happen to zebra crossings?
It is always either disturbing or amusing, I can't decide which, when watching an AOL ad and seeing them talking about how spam can, in and of itself, cause your computer to be infected, and thus AOL's blocking of spam is really, really good...
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm