On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:06:31PM +0200, Rumen Yotov wrote: > On ??, 2004-02-01 at 15:56, Jakub Krajcovic wrote: > > > So let me make a conclusion ... > > > > > > If viruses can/can't infect users account is not a question > > > of users education, but application weakness. > > > > > > noro > > > > >From how i look at it, it does not necessary have to have anything to do > > with application strenghts/weaknesses. It's the way that you identify > > executables in the OS. > > > > Imagine what a Linux user would have to do to get infected by a virus > > that spreads by email... he would have to > > a) save the file on his drive > > b) give it exetutable persmissions > > c) intentionally run it. > > > > And even then, the virus could infect only the user files, because it > > would be ran as a process started by the given user. So unless this > > action is taken by root, i think that the issue linux and viruses is not > > an issue... > Sorry may be OT but your signature can't be verified and you write it's > on pgp.mit.edu.
It works fine for me. [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Feb 1 10:11:00 2004) --] gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 1 08:56:52 2004 EST using DSA key ID 8825672D gpg: Good signature from "Jakub Krajcovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 831F C33C 087F B5EA 8A12 025D EEEA 9147 8825 672D [-- End of PGP output --] -- ,,, (o o) Peter Wu ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- Powered by Gentoo Linux 2.4.22
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature