Joe Sloan wrote: > John Rudd wrote: >> Joe Sloan wrote: >>> John Rudd wrote: >>>> Dennis Peterson wrote: >>>>> And to follow up on the earlier >>>>> point about Windows systems not being the sole source of spam/virus >>>>> distribution, >>>> The idea that any platform (windows, unix/linux, etc.) attached to the >>>> net cannot be subverted into being a spam/virus zombie is, at best, >>>> naive. And a naive sysadmin is a danger to us all. >>> I don't think anybody on this list has ever said windows can't be >>> subverted. The swarms of compromised xp boxes that are rented out in >>> blocks of 1000 or 10000 for sending spam are proof enough of that. >> From reading the quotes, someone was suggesting that they're immune to >> compromises because they're not running windows. That statement is >> covered by my assertion of "that idea is naive". > > I don't think they said they were immune to compromises, but that there > was no compelling case for the added expense of virus scanning all > outgoing mail in a non-windows environment.
That's not significantly different. Just because they're in a non-windows environment doesn't mean they can't possibly be sending out viruses. The person who expressed that is, as I said, being naive. And, irresponsible. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
