Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Anti-virus? Does anyone think this is just wrong

  • Subject: Re: Anti-virus? Does anyone think this is just wrong
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:43:00 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <cJqdneRQM5K_vXfenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com> <pan.2006.>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [Liam Slider] on Wednesday 08 February 2006 17:02 \__

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:46:26 -0500, mlw wrote:
>> I was thinking about the "anti-virus" market on Windows. The more I think
>> about it, the less sense it makes.
>> Viruses find and use exploits, or "defects," in an operating system
>> through which they inflict harm on your property.
>> Wouldn't *any* reputable manufacturer be inclined to fix their product?
>> If I had a T.V. for which I had to buy a cable filter to keep commercials
>> from reprogramming my T.V. wouldn't that be Panasonic or RCA's problem?
>> If your operating system *needs* anti-virus software it is defective and
>> the OEM should fix it.  I can't understand any other point of view as
>> being rational.
> The problem stems from a few flaws with the Windows approach. One is "Open
> = Execute" which Windows uses as default. Another is the file extension
> hiding that it does, "hotchick.jpeg.exe" reads as "hotchick.jpeg" which is
> a serious security flaw. Bit the single bigest problem...monoculture.
> Windows is Windows is Windows. It's all pretty much the same, providing
> for up to date systems (unlike say, Linux...where any two Linux distros
> are different enough that this alone can make trouble for any spread of
> malware).
> Back in the days before Microsoft had a lock on the market, when there
> were many different computing platforms to choose from for home use (I
> remember those days well) there were viruses around. But there weren't all
> that many, they weren't all that effective, and they were limited in the
> spread and damage they could do because different people used different
> computers.

That often seems to insinuate that Linux is equally flawed, which is not at
all the case. Linux is far more modular. That's a stern prerequisite when
code needs to fit within a /variety/ of platforms and interact with a
variety of graphical environments, frameworks, and applications.

Ultimately, this makes everything easier to exhaustively and systematically
test for vulnerabilities. What's more, there are many eyes watching and
fingertaps extending, so the code is built to be readable, not just
compilable (to be shipped as binaries).

The aggregation of vulnerabilities from all distributions and UNIX
derivatives (peripheral applications like Apache included) is what continues
to deceive self-defensive pricks. It is them who want to immerse in the
illusion that problems could resurface under any operating system. It is
them who choose to believe that filesystem maintenance, AV software and the
like are an integral part of any O/S. [sarcasm] Maybe they should begin to
teach that at universities. You know, as part of an introduction to O/S
design... [/sarcasm]

Speaking of O/S security, There was harsh criticism when a BBC reported try
to shatter the believe that Apple Macs are relatively immune to attacks.


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Useless fact: sheep outnumber people in NZ
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  5:30pm  up 22 days 12:46,  13 users,  load average: 0.87, 0.86, 0.80
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index