linux get's virus

[von kain]

according to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41628 linux have 25 virus !!!
amazing i thought it was a virus free os and i really thing that linux is the perfect os until now but from what we can see the linux virus are very strong meaning that even the av progs can find them.

quote"According to a live test of antivirus products for Linux conducted at the LinuxWorld event in San Francisco, 10 antivirus products were confronted with 25 viruses, many submitted by members of the audience to see if the AV tools would catch them.

Rather tragically, only three of the antivirus tools caught and blocked all 25 viruses , with one catching fewer than 10 per cent. " i think is time to be very suspicious about the open source progs even the firefox haves a lot of vulnerabilities.


p.s.nothing good last forever.......next stop os .x

 

[DaMulta]

If it becomes popular it will have more viruses......Windows has them because everyone uses it.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

its not impossible ...

 

[error_f0rce]

You gotta love open source, but it's like handing someone the key to your house. It would be interesting to know if most of those viruses were the popular sort that there are already definitions for, or recently homegrown. If they were homegrown and new, that could explain why fewer of them were caught... but you'd like to think these programs would be able to recognize an unknown virus as well....

 

[L|NK|N]

That, my friend is why we always have the virus first. Can't have a cure without the virus!

 

[Dandel]

hmm... the linux kernel itself has almost no virus's/rootkits unless it is specifically installed by the user... on linux you can't visit a website and get a virus instantly, and also theoretically speaking even if the site had a virus it'd be a windows one, which doesn't work on linux, and a simple file scan will reveal the application's true nature... i use clamav and it works great.

 

[von kain]

dandel the funny thing is that the linux is as the error f0rce if you know the code you can hack it...leave someone within you house and with your girlfriend naked inside and you will get the idea.i really have trust on the open source but i have fear for the evil inside on some people i think that if they can they will it's simple as that this is the reason the microsoft and apple don't show their code

p.s. but if you like you can get sued by microsoft that you have stole their code so they will have to saw to you hence the code will be in everyones eyes i think there is a site for that so the microsoft show her code

 

[error_f0rce]

i really have trust on the open source but i have fear for the evil inside on some people i think that if they can they will

I agree, open source is a double-edged sword.

 

[ChaoticBlankness]

The article has been withdrawn from the Inq, I suggest we not make any assumptions until we know why it was withdrawn... they may have got their facts wrong.

 

[von kain]

well dispite the linux virus the open source is easily cracked they have the code

 

[niko084]

I agree, open source is a double-edged sword.

True unfortunately.

But you can't just call it "Linux" you have to keep it to the open source versions.

Things like RedHat and Suse are not going to be the same double-edged sword.

But beyond that, it does have its downsides, "support" but for the most of us, we love it anyways. I am now running Fedora 7.9 beta most the time, considering compiling a version of Debian for myself also. Run server 2003 for games that I can't get to perform correctly on Linux yet.

 

[von kain]

i think most of users refers as open-source the free editions if it wass to pay for it most of users won't even think about it


sad but true people don't care if it is a revolutionary idea or though(as a program is just numbers)

 

[imsati]

>>many submitted by members of the audience to see if the AV tools would catch them

I locked on to that part of the quotation instantly. Linux viruses do exist, but the vast majority are created for the specific purpose of proving it can be done and to test one's ingenuity. In order for a virus to be effective on an OS application, it would have to be specifically formulated for a specific version on a specific platform; too many variables, IMO.

Which brings us to ask why there aren't more viruses for OS. Because it's just that, OS. With potentially millions of code-reviewers who know exactly what they're looking for, and more importantly what shouldn't be there, it's just safer for end-users.

I found Ubuntu just over a year ago, played with KDE for a bit, then fell madly in love with Ubuntu 7.04. I went from using XP daily for years on end to only booting when I need a specific program currently unworkable on Linux...for now.

--Jay

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

Which program insati? WINE does a lot of work...

 

[imsati]

Something for an online game I play called GemStone4. They have a Front End called Wizard that I love and it's sketchy with Ubuntu. Will work for a bit, then just stop. Working on solving the problem though with others who play and use Linux, as it works ok for them, so it's just a matter of looking through and finding out where it cuts out and why. Soon though...very soon. Hopefully a few more days.

But yeah, Wine is nothing short of incredible when it comes to porting stuff!

 

[niko084]

You gotta love open source, but it's like handing someone the key to your house. It would be interesting to know if most of those viruses were the popular sort that there are already definitions for, or recently homegrown. If they were homegrown and new, that could explain why fewer of them were caught... but you'd like to think these programs would be able to recognize an unknown virus as well....

Thats Microsoft's argument against linux...

Remember some of the best programmers and hackers in the world put their own work into linux , they don't want security holes in their os they run themselves either. Although the lack of wide use of Linux does help, at the heart it is a much more secure system.

 

[Zedicus]

niether OS is like a house you own.
in that instance though windows would eqaul an apartment you rent. it SEEMS private for the most part but theres one guy with the master key that could come in whenever he wants and do what he wants.

linux would more like a town square where u hav a personal safe of information that is yours. everyone knows and can see how things work so they can plug holes if the bathroom is leaky or something. but its VERY dificult to actually get into sumones personal files.

OSX where its BSD based has roots in it but then a colorfull candy coated proprietary cover. so i guess yur renting a tent in town sqare.?

 

[PlayOr]

Remember some of the best programmers and hackers in the world put their own work into linux , they don't want security holes in their os they run themselves either.

That's not completely true, though... Wouldn't it be just as easy for someone with more of a malicious outlook to patch their own OS but continue affecting other systems? Similarly, I'm sure people that, pre-XP SP2, used syn flooder spybots on computers, but probably had the patch to prevent their computer from being used as a DDoS machine (a little bit of Winsock tweaking). And with Linux it's not only easier for them to find the hole, but also to patch it.

Overall, though, considering the lack of self-installing programs in Linux, I don't think viruses (or is it virii?) will be too big of an issue.

 

[Ravenas]

What's funny is that the only viruses you can get on Mac is through MS Office.

May be because Mac doesn't have enough users, but then again maybe not because Apple is getting their market back and has grown immensely.

 

[mab1376]

wouldn't a different kernel render the virus useless?