Dropping out

Thanks u guys but im not gonna finish up the Malware U, i've learned enough and i use Ubuntu now as my main OS.

Honestly why deal with the hassle of Windows when you can have a smooth OS like Linux :-) .. thanks everyone though this site is cool!

http://www.ubuntu.com - Take the Linux Leap

You are missing the point.

Linux is NOT safer than windows - if you do not keep it upto date with patches.

Windows is on the majority of systems - so why should a hacker look at hacking a system on which the minority use - when a bigger target of windows is around. As soon as linux or the next greatest thing since sliced bread takes the place of windows - THAT will be the target of hackers.

Re linux - we on this server have thousands of attacks against our servers every day - those attackers - the majority are infected linux machines, not windows - so do not tell me that linux is more secure - I know better.

Wow, Chris is right, you really did miss the point.

Learning is not as much to help you help yourself then to help others.

You aren't here to learn how to clean yourself, you are here to learn how to help others clean themselves.

Sorry for the double but I can't edit my posts.

What I wanted to add was that maybe you should put up a post as to what the purpose of joining the mru is and what you are supposed to accomplish and what is the outcome.

Since it seems that a lot of people have the wrong idea as to why they are here.

[quote=MMJ]Learning is not as much to help you help yourself then to help others.[/quote]
Yes, that occurred to me as soon as I read your original post, micronacid .... although I use Windows and don't get infected on my main systems because of the way I use the Internet, I do want to help people get clear of the junk that's out there.

It's a bit like saying that just because you don't take drugs, that it's not your problem ..... but you may want to help other people who do have a problem with drugs get clear.

i guess you guys have a good point, and i know Linux has vunerabiltiy in it just as windows does, but overall i feel like Linux is a safer environment for a home user to use.

And Chris do you really think Linux is going to overthrow the Empire Microsoft has built?

Also i think i'll stay around you guy's have a point i do like to help people and it can't hurt to learn some stuff in the process..

thanks you guys :-)

Good on ya, micronacid

Re your signature - is that the only place that malware is crap? How about this:

M.I.C.E.
Malware Is Crap Everywhere

Hah. I'm a Linux user too. Linux, like any other operating system, has flaws, exploits and viruses.

The answer "because Linux is a minority it has less problems" isn't really an acceptable answer.

Linux is open source. Users have the ability to make the change themself and if they can't or don't know how to the millions of other users most likely will.

Vista has taken a lessons from Linux. On Linux you can only install or perform administrative tasks, or others that are possibly harmful, by using a password. It's really not difficult.

Yes it's true. If Linux was the most dominant operating system it would have more infections and security risks. However I HIGHLY doubt it would have as many or be as pathetically high as Windows.

"Gibbs" wrote:Linux is open source. Users have the ability to make the change themself and if they can't or don't know how to the millions of other users most likely will.

Yes it's true. If Linux was the most dominant operating system it would have more infections and security risks. However I HIGHLY doubt it would have as many or be as pathetically high as Windows.

I think these two statements contradict each other.
If there are so many people who can change Linux code themselves, then it stands to reason that there will be more people to write malicious code and find the vulnerabilities.

"katana" wrote:

"Gibbs" wrote:Linux is open source. Users have the ability to make the change themself and if they can't or don't know how to the millions of other users most likely will.

Yes it's true. If Linux was the most dominant operating system it would have more infections and security risks. However I HIGHLY doubt it would have as many or be as pathetically high as Windows.

I think these two statements contradict each other.
If there are so many people who can change Linux code themselves, then it stands to reason that there will be more people to write malicious code and find the vulnerabilities.

That's not the case at all. Look at the Apache web server, it's open source where as Windows IIS is proprietary.

The top 50 sites in the world, with the largest uptime, use Apache (including this site most likely). The majority of web servers use Apache (something like 70%). However IIS (Windows) has had more security failures (code red anyone?) and is prone to attacks, worms etc and only 20% of servers on the internet use it.

This also goes against the "more people use Windows = more attacks". Theres more attacks on Linux/BSD web servers then there are Windows yet Windows still lacks in security.

Windows isn't secure. I mean take Windows XP for example. It takes MINUTES (I think it's averaged at 10 minutes?) to get malicious content (adware/spyware/a virus) on an unpatched version on the internet. It's faster to get a virus then it is to patch. Windows IS a virus.

There are flaws in the Windows design. For example the heavy reliance on the RPC.

Linux isn't perfect (and isn't the most secure, lookup FreeBSD) but it sure as hell IS more secure then Windows. I'm just waiting to see how Vista goes. Don't get me wrong I like Windows but the security is a sham.

If there are so many people who can change Linux code themselves, then it stands to reason that there will be more people to write malicious code and find the vulnerabilities.

There are lots of people who do this. Since one can change the Linux code himself/herself, there lies chances that the malicious codes will run on a non-customized Linux PC than a PC which has been customized by a user to suit himself/herself.

Windows isn't secure. I mean take Windows XP for example. It takes MINUTES (I think it's averaged at 10 minutes?) to get malicious content (adware/spyware/a virus) on an unpatched version on the internet. It's faster to get a virus then it is to patch. Windows IS a virus.

Not necessary. I've spent more than a day patching and has not been infected. Even for a fresh install, I've never met this problem, with or without a firewall and antivirus.

Don't get me wrong I like Windows but the security is a sham.

Anything can be as secure as you want it to be. Security applications are like taking medicine, it seeks to reduce symptoms, not cure. Security applications can only reduce your chances of getting attacked because of a bla bla bla vulnerability, but if you still aren't careful, you will fall prey to the attacker.

Sure. You can buy a Firewall and anti-virus software and install it prior to connecting to the Internet.

With Linux you don't need to, and if you do theres a free solution to it. I've been running Linux without a firewall for 2 years. I have one but it's hardly ever used. Never any problems.

Firefox (the safest web browser according to many Windows users) is open source. Please give me an example of where open source has ever produced a critical security threat... Seriously it's an untrue myth.

Also everything done in Linux that makes an impact on the system requires a password. So if somebody did find a loophole they would most likely have to find out my root password, username and user password.

Linux is like eating an apple a day, it keeps the doctor away.

Gibbs.

Is that why I have a 1000 infected linux machines a day hitting my servers with attempted exploites.

What it does show is that ALL operating systems are prone to vulnerabilities and unless fully patched any system is likely to become a zombie.

It maters nothing which op system you use - what matters is making sure you have it fully patched.

Firefox (the safest web browser according to many Windows users) is open source. Please give me an example of where open source has ever produced a critical security threat...

Don't be so confident yet. While both aren't really critical in my own opinion, if you are to tweak them in anyway, the results would be disastrous.

http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/focusbug/ffversion.html
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/08/tech-firefoxflaws-20070208.html

Also everything done in Linux that makes an impact on the system requires a password.

That's if you are editing some system configurations directly. There are workarounds, and it's not hard to implement them.

There's also a distro of Linux which lets you do such things. Ran it on my own system and had some fun results.

"ndmmxiaomayi" wrote:

Firefox (the safest web browser according to many Windows users) is open source. Please give me an example of where open source has ever produced a critical security threat...

Don't be so confident yet. While both aren't really critical in my own opinion, if you are to tweak them in anyway, the results would be disastrous.

http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/focusbug/ffversion.html
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/08/tech-firefoxflaws-20070208.html

Also everything done in Linux that makes an impact on the system requires a password.

That's if you are editing some system configurations directly. There are workarounds, and it's not hard to implement them.

There's also a distro of Linux which lets you do such things. Ran it on my own system and had some fun results.

I said according to Windows users . I personally prefer Opera and Galeon. Anyhow they don't effect me.

Lets go back to proprietary software like Internet Explorer. How many flaws can be found with IE?

"ChrisRLG" wrote:Gibbs.

Is that why I have a 1000 infected linux machines a day hitting my servers with attempted exploites.

What it does show is that ALL operating systems are prone to vulnerabilities and unless fully patched any system is likely to become a zombie.

It maters nothing which op system you use - what matters is making sure you have it fully patched.

It does matter, of course it does. I agreed from the start that all operating systems have vulnerabilities, they are made by humans afterall.

You have a popular and well established forum here. Your bound to get a lot of attacks. However if you switched to a Windows based server I can guarantee the percentage of successful attackd and exploits would be much higher.

Windows is not mudular and it's transition to a multi-user model isn't pure. It's flawed.

Have you ever had a problem on these forums regarding Linux malware? Is so I doubt many. I'd be suprised if any. The percentage of people using Linux as opposed to Windows would at least mean a small percentage of posts were based around Linux infections if it's as "unsecure" as Windows.