P
Peter Köhlmann
Big said:
Quit lying. I don't use .NEt *at* *all*
And never will
Youz have managed to be even more clueless than Hadron Larry. Congrats
Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus,linux malware
Quit lying. I don't use .NEt *at* *all*
And never will
Youz have managed to be even more clueless than Hadron Larry. Congrats
P
Peter Köhlmann
Big said:
Guess what? I don't care what you believe
F
FromTheRafters
Peter said:
No it hasn't, it has to do with the numbers. He could have been more
explicit by stating "the size of the userbase" instead of "userbase" but
that should be no problem if left implicit for any *thinking* person.
Forgot to mention? Fact is I just plain wasn't talking about servers.
That's probably due more to OS security than to the population.
So, if the ultimate quest is for "lots of desktops" what executable
filetype would you compile your SpamBot for ELF or EXE?
Exactly - you'd target the most popular platform.
Just shows me what an idiot you are, were you expecting something else?
S
Snit
Dustin stated in post Xns9F558E94ED96BHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/3/11 10:54 AM:
I suggest you check your math.
My claim:
People generally pay 2-3x for a Mac than what they would pay
for a PC.
Your claim:
You have a PC about half the cost of a Mac.
And then you claim I am wrong. Perhaps you read my comments incorrectly?
Hence the "2-3x as much".
I was in reference to Macs. I was only including malware that directly
scams the infected party. Someone else jumped in and noted that a lot of
malware does things other than this - acting as a zombie for example.
And I agreed - my comments had not taken that into consideration and I stood
corrected.
Still, Macs are popular enough now (about 6% world market share) where the
security by obscurity view is losing strength, just not by as much as I
implied in my initial comments.
I suggest you check your math.
My claim:
People generally pay 2-3x for a Mac than what they would pay
for a PC.
Your claim:
You have a PC about half the cost of a Mac.
And then you claim I am wrong. Perhaps you read my comments incorrectly?
Hence the "2-3x as much".
I was in reference to Macs. I was only including malware that directly
scams the infected party. Someone else jumped in and noted that a lot of
malware does things other than this - acting as a zombie for example.
And I agreed - my comments had not taken that into consideration and I stood
corrected.
Still, Macs are popular enough now (about 6% world market share) where the
security by obscurity view is losing strength, just not by as much as I
implied in my initial comments.
F
FromTheRafters
Hadron said:
Linux can stand on its own and doesn't need advocacy - especially if it
comes from people as clueless as this. It only proves the point of the
Linux userbase being polluted leading to more Windows-like experience
down the road as far as malware is concerned.
The first clue is when you argue with them they try to make it sound
like you are arguing against Linux when all you are really doing is
arguing against some stupid statement they made.
P
Peter Köhlmann
FromTheRafters said:
Up to here I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about windows in
general.
It gets owned by malware a lot easier than linux, and you may feel free to
stomp your feet for hours on end. It will not change that simple fact,
though
Security plays a role, yes.
But also the fact that linux servers tend to be much easier to admin than
windows servers.
That the companies employing linxu servers don't need to pay as much in
licence fees adds another bonus point, naturally.
Another point may be that linux isn't glued to the x86-processor base as
windows currently is. There isn't any windows for real computers, after all.
No. I'd target the easiest platform. And if that means to go after the
harder one first, in order to have the easy ones served on a silver platter,
so be it. Strangely though, there aren't that many reports of owned linux
servers. There should be a lot more
F
FromTheRafters
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
[...]
I would never have argued against that point.
The *why* of it and not the *fact* of it was in question.
Then you wouldn't cut it as a desktop commercial malware programmer.
However, it *is* true among servers that Linux is a viable target.
Again, there are enough of them to make it worthwhile, and as you
mentioned they tend to have more resources. And again, it is not about
the security of the OS but the "cheese" aspect alone. Web applications
are being subverted.
http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/
Still, if these owned boxes were being used to distribute desktop
application malware (Bots) - those would be written for Windows machines
for best return on investment because of the numbers.
[...]
I would never have argued against that point.
The *why* of it and not the *fact* of it was in question.
Then you wouldn't cut it as a desktop commercial malware programmer.
However, it *is* true among servers that Linux is a viable target.
Again, there are enough of them to make it worthwhile, and as you
mentioned they tend to have more resources. And again, it is not about
the security of the OS but the "cheese" aspect alone. Web applications
are being subverted.
http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/
Still, if these owned boxes were being used to distribute desktop
application malware (Bots) - those would be written for Windows machines
for best return on investment because of the numbers.
F
FromTheRafters
Another aspect is that such scams like scareware (you have porn, or youSnit said:
have viruses) works better on Windows because of the homogeneity of the
applications usually found on the system. It is far less likely that a
web page's script is going to be able to mimic the users desktop shell
program's GUI (scanning files ****** done | finding porn *******done)
and fool the user.
I even got one of those that tried to show me a Vista look on my XP
system. Linux is far more varied in its looks, and thus harder to target
in this manner. I don't have one, but maybe Macs are also more
homogenous in GUI looks than Linux. Still - are there enough users
likely to be fooled by this to make it worth someones time writing a
socially engineered computer con for a specific platform?
It's still about the numbers.
Anyway, there *are* such scareware programs targeting Macs now, so that
may end up weakening your stance as well.
R
RayLopez99
Shut up Kraut. Get back to your factory workstation and make money to
pay off my countryman's bad loans in Greece. And do it with a smile.
Move. NOW! VAMOS! Boy don't make me lose my tone.
RL
R
RayLopez99
Shit for brains Dustin I was actually trying to make you look more
impressive than you actually are. I was pumping you up, you dump.
Lern to reed.
RL
P
Peter Köhlmann
RayLopez99 said:
Poor Dopez.
Was that badge of glue you got from Snit Michael Glasser too potent for your
tiny "brain"?
L
Leon Whyte
The only reason your brains don't rattle is sound doesn't travel through
a vaccuum.
J
JEDIDIAH
Nope. ANY OS install requires the user have a little bit of a clue.
Although it is far more important that the user simply not be scared
away by the task.
There is nothing "hard" about installing Linux. Infact, it is far more
likely to be EASIER as it will be self contained and automated unlike the
WinDOS equivalent.
[deletia]
Hitting OK a few times is hardly difficult.
J
JEDIDIAH
Graphics artists aren't exactly a great brain trust.
It doesn't matter if it's a "windows market". My remark about the brain
trust bears repeating about now. Whether or not malware exists on a platform
is entirely a matter of how good of a breeding ground it is. What kind of
security holes exist on the platform? How can an infection be created and
spread?
These are the relevant questions.
"How many machines are out there?" is quite irrelevant.
Anyone familiar with the history of malware is aware of this.
J
JEDIDIAH
No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why bother?
Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is pretty
assinine actually.
It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
it's adoption since the System 6 days.
J
JEDIDIAH
This is just a stupid Lemming lie.
The primary reason that people use Linux is that it isn't WinDOS.
It doesn't get infected with viruses. It doesn't crash. It doesn't freeze
when doing simple things and make the rest of the desktop useless.
The fact that the OS is gratis is just a bonus.
This is a silly argument. If it weren't a free copy of Linux then it
would be a free copy of Windows. The cost aspect really isn't an issue.
Although mandatory license management is an issue. There's simply less
bother when you are using a product that is gratis and thus not subjct to
stupid license enforcement shenanigans. You can move a copy from machine to
machine without a lot of bother. You can blow it away completely and start
from scratch on the same machine without needing to worry if your license
will get revalidated.
It's not the "cost". It's the bother.
The primary reason that people use Linux is that it isn't WinDOS.
It doesn't get infected with viruses. It doesn't crash. It doesn't freeze
when doing simple things and make the rest of the desktop useless.
The fact that the OS is gratis is just a bonus.
This is a silly argument. If it weren't a free copy of Linux then it
would be a free copy of Windows. The cost aspect really isn't an issue.
Although mandatory license management is an issue. There's simply less
bother when you are using a product that is gratis and thus not subjct to
stupid license enforcement shenanigans. You can move a copy from machine to
machine without a lot of bother. You can blow it away completely and start
from scratch on the same machine without needing to worry if your license
will get revalidated.
It's not the "cost". It's the bother.
J
JEDIDIAH
All I see is people talking about they installed Linux on a door-stop,
and they got it on a dumpster dive.
You choose to fabricate whatever you like.
Reality as you've seen it really doesn't matter.
[deletia]
J
JEDIDIAH
Nevermind "build". I can plain get one in a box from Best Buy that
will be more powerful than a Mac while costing less. Apple uses
inherently expensive parts. That makes it pretty trivial to beat them
on cost.
S
Snit
JEDIDIAH stated in post (e-mail address removed) on 9/4/11 8:10 PM:
One of the thing that Jobs understood was that both the designers and the
programmers work hard... they just work in such different areas that they
have a hard time communicating.
One of the thing that Jobs understood was that both the designers and the
programmers work hard... they just work in such different areas that they
have a hard time communicating.
S