Viral

[elwing]

There is still no known virus for linux/arm, so there is no antivirus available nor usefull

sorry, but that's the kind of idea that makes a system vulnerable... there's no known virus, but look at the "allmighty security of linux"


http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2010/05/10/linux-systems-rank-high-on-spam-sender-list-40088889/


... seems like all thoses lazy people thinking that linux is secure render in fact linux e-mail forward service less secure than windows ones...

 

[levi]

Spam is not involved in virus transmission. It's used for general commercial spam, phishing and trojans. But that semantic detail aside, you're right. Linux mail relay software is based on very old, mature code, stuff written back in the day before spam existed. It's a failure of the admins and distro makers that they don't modify the default settings to tie down these systems by default IMO.

 

[Klaue]

Love the article. Citing desktop distribution rates (where windows is at the top) when the only sources of this spame are probably server systems (where linux is way higher). Diddn't read a line more of that.


Also, an unsecured SMTP server (in the sense that third parties can send mails) has nothing to do with virii


Anti-Virus-systems as a whole are pretty much snakeoil. Sure, they help against old virii, but most of the time, old ones won't get in if you update your system. But they're no good for new virii, those using zero day exploits, because those are so new that no virus signature for them exists (many progs have something in it to find unknown virii, but I diddn't once see a message of that that was not a false positive). virii do the most damage in the time just after they were released for this exact reason.


Just keep your system up to date don't do stupid stuff like double-clicking mail attachments and you'll be fine.


Those ressource-wasting anti-virus-programs are only good for the type of people who would run anythig without thinking twice and who never update anything (i.e. most users, but probably a minority on this board). Those same people would probably also happily give their root password to a program, so anyone could easely make a "virus" that would erase their hard drive and that wouldn't be caught by any antivirus system.


When I still used Windows, I made a test once. I went on for two months, using the computer (and internet) daily, all without an antivirus. Then at the end I booted with the UBCD4win (boot cd with antivirus), fired up the scanner, updated it and let it run a full system scan. No virii were found.

Really??? I'm the only person who had a brain meltdown trying to decipher the first post?

No.

 

[elwing]

Spam is not involved in virus transmission. It's used for general commercial spam, phishing and trojans. But that semantic detail aside, you're right. Linux mail relay software is based on very old, mature code, stuff written back in the day before spam existed. It's a failure of the admins and distro makers that they don't modify the default settings to tie down these systems by default IMO.

that's exactly what I was meaning, the OP question is a good one. it's wrong to bash him with the regular "there's no need of AV" habitual flames... even if there's no virus for linux itself (yet) it's a really bad idea to connect a device to your network that can freely maniuplate files that might be infected by virus dangerous for the rest of the network without even knowing it.

 

[levi]

Hmm, I'd say it's the responsibility of the machine receiving the information to check that it can't be infected by it. On top of that, if you're running a server, it's important to stay up-to-date with patches so that bugs can't be exploited - no AV will protect you from that. In general it's a good idea to run a firewall to stop any unidentified bugs being exploited on your system before a patch is available. But I don't see the need to AV specifically. If I transferred files from a PC to an Amiga, I wouldn't expect the PC to have verified that they're not infected with an Amiga virus, for example.

 

[Gerix]

I think I first heard it on Waynes World, which would be a pretty long way away from Electro, but I guess that's the way of cultural memes.

My bad, that was an elaborate allusion concerning an old song and a movie quote. I was referring to the "hip-hop...be-bop" phrase, not "my bad." Anyway, I'm sure no one else got it.

 

[froggyman]

Well the thing is that Linux is designed in a way to be much more secure than windows. And as long as you don't run everything as root you aren't really going to have a problem as the most damage that it will do to your pandora is infect your home directory which shouldn't have any ELF files (executables). Yeah, it can still act as a carrier of the viruses (virii is in correct, just sayin' )


This page does a really good job of explaining it: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus (except that a windows virus couldn't really run on the pandora via Wine currently...)

 

[sebt3]

Well the thing is that Linux is designed in a way to be much more secure than windows.

I'm not into windows stuff much (read not at all) and not many much into security, but this is just not true anymore. Windows now have user/admin separation (where I work, I cant write anywhere but my document&settings directory). It have memory separation and memory randomisation. etc.

 

[levi]

That's all true, but there are some reasons why Windows is still not as secure as Linux is - it's not just about relative installed base, though to be sure if Linux was more of a big deal it would be more under attack from malware writers. But it benefits from having open scrutiny of the source code, patched delivered any time day or night, not just once a month, the fact that users are encouraged to not run as root most of the time thanks to easy privilege escalation, whereas in the Windows world most users will run as an Admin so they don't have to log out and log in again to change the display settings (for example). Granted, Windows has come a very long way since Windows 98, but Linux hasn't stood still either with projects to make setting up firewalls easier, or the SELinux project (though I'd be the first to admit that can almost be more trouble than it's worth at the moment).


Granted, a lot of that doesn't apply to the Pandora - it doesn't run SELinux and doesn't receive package updates to the OS except for the semi-regular hotfixes. But it benefits from not running many network-facing servers, which limits the avenues of attack open to the world at large. And besides, if routers running embedded Linux can do get away with not being patched at all regularly I'd hope the Pandora can.

 

[WizardStan]

Yeah, it can still act as a carrier of the viruses (virii is in correct, just sayin' )

Latin has no concept of plural virus. I have virus. You have virus. We have virus. It wasn't until modern times that distinctions were made between two different virus and a need for a plural. So while virii is grammatically correct, it's supposedly considered proper to use the modern method of pluralizing it: adding an 's'. Both are generally accepted though. I've even known some people to pluralize the singular: I have 3 virus. It wouldn't be the first word where the singular and plural nouns were the same.


So said my Latin CS prof anyway, but apparently he's "lied" to me before.

 

[Klaue]

I'm not into windows stuff much (read not at all) and not many much into security, but this is just not true anymore. Windows now have user/admin separation (where I work, I cant write anywhere but my document&settings directory). It have memory separation and memory randomisation. etc.

Just an example of Windows 7 security. No program can write anything to c:\programs. except when its name includes "install" (installer.exe for example). yeah, that's right, a program with a FILENAME with "install" in it gets automatically more rights than any other. Serious security right there, isn't it?


About viruses/virii: I know some people say that virii is incorrect and most places use viruses (wikipedia for example), but for me personally, "viruses" just sounds retarded and "virii" sounds way better, so I use the latter

 

[doublebeta]

Just an example of Windows 7 security. No program can write anything to c:\programs. except when its name includes "install" (installer.exe for example). yeah, that's right, a program with a FILENAME with "install" in it gets automatically more rights than any other. Serious security right there, isn't it?


About viruses/virii: I know some people say that virii is incorrect and most places use viruses (wikipedia for example), but for me personally, "viruses" just sounds retarded and "virii" sounds way better, so I use the latter

Oh god you're joking right?? That's low even for Micro$loth. Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. And they're supposed to be 'tightening' security? I've only ever used WIndows XP (switched to Linux - never looking back) but when i've used others' Win boxen (colloq. or hacker plural of box, since we're talking of plurals. See the Jargon File.) i've found the 'security' popups frickin' annoying.


Well, you should be right on the Pandora, I don't see a direct need for the average user (i'll use it - i'm NOT saying/hinting i'm an elite security exp3rt here.) to have antivirus - but you might want to give any PNDs you want to try a quick pass with your favorite antivirus, or clamav (there was a windows port - it seems you're a windows user since Mac users think they're so awesome and antivirus isn't needed for them - so wrong.). Just keep your passwords nice and long, and NEVER EVER EVER reuse passwords. That's one thing I can recommend about security.


When I ran my (Linux) server, I had clamav set up to scan /var/www every week to help make sure I wasn't being used as a (primarily windows) malware distributor (i.e. I got 'hacked' (ugh hate using the word like this)). Other than that I wasn't concerned about virii on Linux/x86 - after reading this article I quickly installed clamav and ran a scan on my desktop - just to see if anything WOULD come up.


Maybe I should write a Pandora virus to deliver hotfixes. Hey, it's STILL not as evul as Sony making people update their PSPs to play new games. ...Mainly because hotfixes add functionality instead of bricking your device er taking away your fun um 'preventing piracy'


Post last edited by Sony Corporation at 13:37. Previous edits by Microsoft 94y ago (btw that says 'gay' - i'm not homophobic but still. Er, crap joke, poor execution.)

 

[Klaue]

Oh god you're joking right??

nope


It was very hard to get an official source (I know this from using the windows wrapper for the izpack installer, which failed for a program of mine on win 7, at least until I added the striing "install" to the file name...), but here it is: http://technet.microsoft.com/zh-tw/library/dd835540%28WS.10%29.aspx (while a chinese page, text is english - only thing google spit out)

Installer detection technology

[..]These protected system locations are typically writeable only by an administrator in Installer detection technology, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows 7 heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials[...]


Before a 32-bit process is created, the following attributes are checked to determine whether it is an installer:


* The file name includes keywords such as "install," "setup," or "update."


[...]

To be fair, I only had users report that it worked with the file name change, so I'm not sure if that UAC boy shows up. But even if it does, it's still pretty bad design

 

[Tickles]

Really??? I'm the only person who had a brain meltdown trying to decipher the first post?

Ohhhhh, I see. I read it on my phone, where a lack of punctuation is not uncommon, so I didn't even notice :lol:

It's not hip hop...It's Electro...

...prick.

 

[doublebeta]

nope


It was very hard to get an official source (I know this from using the windows wrapper for the izpack installer, which failed for a program of mine on win 7, at least until I added the striing "install" to the file name...), but here it is: http://technet.microsoft.com/zh-tw/library/dd835540%28WS.10%29.aspx (while a chinese page, text is english - only thing google spit out)


To be fair, I only had users report that it worked with the file name change, so I'm not sure if that UAC boy shows up. But even if it does, it's still pretty bad design

SO I guess they patented this too?


Microsoft SuperCoolInstallerDetectionSystem. Fits in with "Microsoft SuperCoolNoNothingAdmin" just fine.


And not so long ago people were whinging about how the Unix execute-bit can just be set by a program. Heh. A program can rename and execute itself also. (But hmm, can you toggle your own setuid bit? This WASN'T raised by Cpt. Noobicus.)

 

[Bosbeetle]

How about some viral marketing.


Make a site about card board boxes and hype it a little bit. Then let one or two users accidentily look at the source code. And hey whats that! there is a message there that say "I've tried to seal it a much as possible let's hope nobody opens the box. Regards site adiministrator" Have some stupid clues and some mystery youtube video's. And then somebody opened pandora's box!