-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 21 August 2004 08:45:08, JoeHill wrote: > On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:25:04 -0400 > > Bryan Phinney disseminated the following: > > Ahhh, right. I mean, why would a hacker bother to try to hit Linux when > > all he would manage to do is compromise thousands of machines that make > > up the entire Internet backbone. I mean, what would be the good in, say > > compromising all the google clusters and disrupting the primary search > > engine of the Internet? The other script kiddies would probably laugh > > you out of the Internet cafe when talking about that compared to, oh, > > sending out a brain-dead virus built from a kit, using a vulerability > > that was published a year ago, that hits home users who haven't updated > > their software since they bought their computer. Yeah, it must be that > > whole windows popularity thing, I am sure that the comparitive difficulty > > in targeting Linux over windows has absolutely nothing to do with it. > > Pull the other one. > > ROFLMAO! Nice...that's a keeper. > > The far less amusing version, dare I post it again: > > http://securityfocus.com/columnists/188
I agree with your assessment of Bryan's reply. (-: On the other hand; you've probably seen the additional "editor's" comments on that article that were added since it was first run? One includes a link to the wildlist included in the editor's: "Editor's note: unfortunately we have been made aware that this quote by Dr. Peeling and Dr. Satchell is incorrect; the independent WildList organization produces a monthly "in the wild" list of viruses. While the vast majority of viruses in their report are Windows-based, there are still some Linux-based viruses (listed as "Other") found in the wild as well." Link: http://www.wildlist.org/WildList/ Later the editor has this to add: "Editor's note: the above vulnerabilities, while valid, all had patches provided by Microsoft months before they were actively exploited by malicious code. This does not negate the fact that the vulnerabilities existed -- however there are also exploits for some Linux mail clients (Pine, mutt) that will execute code on a system when the user views the message as well. To bypass the security fix provided by Microsoft, the user must now take some specific actions as explained in the link above." In reference to the editor's first "correction" I see exactly one virus under other for the latest month (June) on the list: +W32/Bagle.X. Since that's obviously a native Windows critter...who is this editor when he isn't corrupting articles? The second editorial comment, while somewhat true, is in fact exceptionally misleading and seems to be an excerpt from the Microsoft "Get the Facts" PR kit. A Win32 "Linux Virus?" Yeah right. http://www.z-virus.com/Eng-virus-HTM/bagle-x.htm http://enterprise-linux-it.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=23837 I once had a lot more respect for Security Focus and the writers that contribute there, with a few notable exceptions. On the third hand (Moties anyone? <g>); A question, does anyone know why the list is suddenly being astro-turfed with html messages? Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.6.8.1-2mdk 09:15:57 up 13:30, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.22, 0.17 "The porcupine with the sharpest quills gets stuck on a tree more often." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBJ3JgZqvqlrLPr5YRApCfAKCQ6twjHUxfpppyVgo3j5HBARDJDQCffMpZ zeg50zjsm+3DiRPSxE1KNdU= =7817 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
