question;
how is linux affected by virii, and how does it combat them?
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-26 1:30
No operating system is immune to viral infection, but Linux in general has several security measures (UNIX permissions, the actual file hierarchy, software delivery methods, etc) and many of its developers follow in their example when writing applications. It is for these two reason that it is much more secure beneath the surface than something the likes of Windows. This thread is likely to bring about a huge flame war with would-be evangelists using terms like 'security through obscurity' and 'vulnerability disclosure', but as it stands Linux is relatively safe and sound. To answer you questions a little more, there are several security bulletins (Linux Security being a popular one) and a few anti-virus programs (Clam-AV for instance) out there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-26 1:33
one of the best security practices (and safety practices) is to not run under a root/administrator account; i'd bet that 90% of all windows machines are run under Administrator or such account with similar privileges, because of mandates of compatibility with older software, etc. many linux machines are run as root or su only as necessary, that is one factor why linux is more secure.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-26 3:28
>>2
Like Windows doesn't have an even more detailed permission scheme (although people don't use it) and proper file hierarchy. As for software delivery methods, I hope you don't mean wasting your time religiously compiling everything like it was any safer.
>>3
BTW, I'm always root on Linux and Administrator on Windows and never had a problem with viruses or fscking my system up. It's just a matter of knowing what you do. Problem is, lusers who browse the intarweb with Microsoft Internet Explorer looking for awesome Flash screensavers and funny web pranks, EasyEverything(TM), press-butan-run-thingy like things, and files to play with Windows Media Player 10 Series complete with DRM, run as administrators when they couldn't tell the difference between a computer and a dishwasher, and, expectedly, fuck up.
Regardless compatibility with older software, no, there shouldn't be any issues with the vast majority of applications, really.
i don't know if >>4 is stupid or not, but he hasn't heard of apt-get or any related package managers. that is what >>2 meant by software delivery methods. i don't think windows really has anything of the sort.
STOP RUNNING AS ROOT, DUMBASS! I personally learned that lesson a few years ago, running xchat or something IRC as root, bragging about getting Linux working, and getting rooted five minutes later. Luckily, he wasn't an ass, and didn't trash anything, so I was able to unplug the ethernet and reinstall.
Linux is definately not immune to specific attacks, but virii aren't going to be a problem, possibly ever, at least on a gigantic scale. If a major hole in the Linux plan is exploited, you can bet it'll be fixed quick. Unlike Windows, where nobody'll let you fix it and you have to rely on third party crap.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 9:09
>>14
I always ran as root and never had a problem. Hardware firewalls may have something to do with this.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 13:27
You can run as root just fine as long as you don't run unsafe code.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 17:10
>>16
Or your favourite browser has a small bug which can be used to execute code with local user rights. Oh? You're root?
>>15
When you do, don't come crying to me. And a hardware firewall has nothing to do with it.
>>16
All code is safe until someone finds a hole in it.
>>18
Even Firefox has had a few major holes. What was it, 1.0.7 that fixed a major escalation problem? Where you went to a site and they could run arbitrary code or something? I use it, so I'm not trying to bash it or anything, the point is, NO code is gauranteed 100% secure.
I know in Windows it's unreasonable to run as a limited user (and it doesn't look like they're gonna fix it in Vista, either *groan*), but given the fact that it takes about ten minutes to setup your machine to use a regular accout and move/chown all your data, it's just plain stupid to always run as root. The only times you need it is for system wide configurations and updates anyway. And those aren't everyday occurances.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 0:29
thanks for the help guys. this assignment will get done a lot quicker 'cos of all your help <3
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 3:26
Not being root is a PITA because I'm installing shit and changing system settings all the time, as well as running some things that require you to be root. Plus there's the anal file permissions which would prevent access to the files I need all the time. Who knows when I want to check some log or configuration file, it'd be anal to have to su to root all the fucking time. Half the commands I enter would have to run as root.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 5:03
>>21
Then why don't you just leave one console open?
Idiots...
>Plus there's the anal file permissions which would prevent access to the files I need all the time.
That's why all personal files should be stored in ~ or another system wide readable directory. And I don't remember that you need write-access to log-files.
If you don't even have read-access then you should REALLY consider to change the distro.
>>21 >>24
troll.
running a root shell should not be a prob, because your apps (BROWSER) run as user and *generally* your processes (BROWSER) cannot interfere with other processes such as the said root shell. if you're really paranoid, close that shell when you do unsafe stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 17:45
>>24
didn't happen here for more than 4 years.
and it's not the same as logging in as root and start your x-session or whatever, it's the same as doing ctrl+alt+f2 and login as root. but maybe you don't do that either, because it could be unsafe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-31 8:28
>>24
as >>25 and >>26 said: It's not a problem because programmes are started as the user and not as root. And those programmes don't have access to the open console.
Then again, an application may sudo rm -rf /
And? Wouldn't you be surprized if a console opens and you should enter the root-password while you were on the www?
I would be. And that's why I wouldn't enter the password.
Unfortunately Brain 2.0 is needed which you obviously lack.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-31 9:57
>>25
Uh, how do you think I launch my applications from? And like I said, having two different shells (root and user) or having to launch and close root shells is a PITA. I just am root, and never had a problem.
>>26-27
Like I said, I'm not the paranoid guy here, I'm in fact making fun of paranoid people who don't want to run as root even when they know what they're doing. My point is it's too big a PITA to be using two users at the same time (the fag account and the real account which does everything) and bothering with passwords, sudo'ing, etc.; and since I'm not sharing my workstation, and I kinda know what I'm doing and are careful enough, I just work as root. I only create users for scripts to run (especially when they need to connect via ssh and all).
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-31 10:26 (sage)
>>27
Some distros cache the root password, so if you ran sudo a couple minutes it would use the cached password without asking.
>>32 That's not a problem of sudo, but one of the distro. Use distros that are less Windows.
Stupid users that are prone to running viruses are likely to use a junky distro. Of course, it is less likely that they use sudo.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-01 13:48
>>34 Of course, it is less likely that they use sudo.
True, they always run as root :D
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-02 7:39
can we conclude that all operating systems that are not windows are relatively safe from viruses? (believe me, virii looks cooler but is apparently incorrect)..ah well