Mike, I lay no claim to being an expert but I have to disagree with you. I am willing to bet a little google-time and you will end up with unix or mac virus info right from news to source code and tools on how to go about them.
Regards Joachim > Â Â Â 1. Re: Google's OS Security Claims Called > 'idiotic' (Mike Barnard) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:14:54 +0300 > From: Mike Barnard <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LUG] Google's OS Security Claims Called > 'idiotic' > To: [email protected], > Linux Users Group Uganda <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > Â Â Â <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Hari Kurup <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > <http://www.cio.com/article/print/496902> > > Bruce Schneier, the chief security technology officer > at BT, scoffed at > > Google's promise. "It's an idiotic claim," Schneier > wrote in an e-mail. > > "It was mathematically proved decades ago that it is > impossible -- not > > an engineering impossibility, not technologically > impossible, but the > > 2+2=3 kind of impossible -- to create an operating > system that is immune > > to viruses." > > > > > I would tend to disagree and to agree with Bruce. Unless I > am wrong, I have > not heard of Viruses for MacOS, *BSD family of OSes and > UNIX OSes in > general, Linux. There is a tendency to find bugs and > security holes in > programs run on these OSes, but the underlying OS is pretty > secure (not > 100%). One trend that I believe we have all noticed is the > creation of > viruses for expensive commercial products. Adobe has been > the latest of > applications to have viruses targeted at them. i am yet to > see a virus > targeted to OpenOffice. > > The OS installed on my laptop has the capability of locking > the OS down to > the point where if something is not installed, not even > root will install it > unless you drop down the security level to a level where > root is allowed to > install and run something globally. This ensures that if i > grant user A an > account on my laptop, what ever he runs will be in his > userland. It will not > affect me nor try to change the binary files in the common > executable paths. > > If Google is thinking this way, then they may just be 'a > little' right on > their claim. > > Solaris have been working on something that i think can > achieve this (stand > to be corrected), Containers and > Zones<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Containers> > The BSd family have had their version for a while called > Jails<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail>. > Get it from the horses mouth <http://wiki.freebsd.org/Jails>. > > There is a list of OS support for such > system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system-level_virtualization>and > what they can do. Some use external applications, for > example, Linux, > AIX others have it embedded into the OS, for example, > Solaris. FreeBSD > > -- > Mike > > Of course, you might discount this possibility, but > remember that one in > a million chances happen 99% of the time. > ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
