__/ [B Gruff] on Saturday 11 February 2006 12:49 \__
> On Saturday 11 February 2006 03:48 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [Roy Schestowitz] on Saturday 11 February 2006 03:45 \__
>>
>>> "Internet Explorer users can be as much as 21 times more likely to end up
>>> with a spyware-infected PC than people who go online with Mozilla's
>>> Firefox browser, academic researchers from Microsoft's backyard said in a
>>> recently published paper."
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060210/tc_cmp/179102616
>>
>> Addendum:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4696532.stm
>>
>> SPYWARE IN EUROPE - Spies per consumer PC
>>
>> UK: 21.6
>> Norway: 20.3
>> Sweden: 19.1
>> Lithuania: 17.2
>> Slovenia: 15
>
> I'm fairly familiar with the ratio of Linux viruses v. Windows viruses.
> Tell me though, what's the position with spyware? Is it about the same
> (i.e. a little bit (!!!) less on Linux)?
> If so, why? Is the argument the same re. spyware as viruses - difficult to
> get it there on a Linux system?
The question would probably be: how can spyware cling onto Linux in the first
place?
First and foremost, Linux comes with (or is supported by) a variety of
browsers that do not jeopardise the user's system and data. In fact, the
most dangerous Web browser , which chooses functionality (ActiveX controls
and the like) over security, is not even available for Linux.
Then comes the issue of 'executability'. How would spyware 'register' itself
(intentional Windows terminology) with Linux or even attain the necessary
privileges? Will the user be fooled into logging in as root, downloading a
script (rather than just clicking it), then changing its permissions and
executing it? Firefox, for example, has a mechanism of trusted sources,
which other products still lack.
Windows has put itself in a trap. The element of trust made
'executionability' very lenient. Even user-friendly and down-to-earth
distributions like Ubuntu Linux, for example, simplify notions that pertain
to admin, but they do not forsake security. The model is user-driven, but a
sufficiently restrictive one -- without damaging intuitiveness.
For Windows to have the bad strategies withdrawn would be hard. Backward
compatibility, also that which involves user skills and expectancies might
suffer. Thus I see no prospects for Windows; security-wise, to remain on
scope. They ought to liaise with someone who understands security if they
wish to survive the coming decade.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Proprietary cripples communication
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:25pm up 25 days 11:41, 13 users, load average: 1.11, 0.77, 0.55
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
