Hans van der Merwe wrote:
Why is it assumed that Linux is less prone to virus attacks?
* Windows is stuck by it's history. Original windows (3.11, 95 or 98)
had no idea of what security mind. So many application programmers
used to store they user data in the application folder (for example).
And they are used to, so they still do.
so it's nearly impossible to run windows XP in safe mode (it can do)
without conflicting with dozen of softwares. result: even a cautious
user is obliged to run XP with root permissions.
* proprietary software, specially shareware rely on external
repositories to spread they application. Proprietary paid software are
hacked and spread by e-mule or similar.
This makes content ack very difficult. You stole a programm, you can't
ask the owner if there is a virus inside...
Open source programms/apps are mostly spread via owner repository or
official mirrors, anybody complaining can have an aswer in a minute
(if a virus is suspected, the community have a very fast response
curve), so any virus will be detected, the origin found and cured in a
matter of hours.
The only significant attacks against Linux are made from the computer
keyboard (and against that, no cure).
* oh... the worst virus: a mail with "my friend, this 'vmlinuz' file
in your /boot folder is an extremely dangerous virus, immediatly
- copy this info to all yours friends,
- go root and remove this file from your disk, and any file that looks
similar."
if you follow such instructions, you deserv the problems you get :-()
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
