On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 12:33 -0400, Temlakos wrote: > I'm sure that's comforting--for now. And we all hope that Linux is > inherently more secure against viruses of all types. Maybe we're right. > But as more people get fed up with "WinDoze" or "Window$" or however you > want to spell it, what will happen when cyber-terrorists start attacking > Linux directly with virus operations? That's what some of my clients are > asking me right now. What do I tell them? Well, you can tell them that if numbers counted for that, then the net surely must have died when an Apache worm attacked some time ago [it didn't]. Numbers don't really count that way. Not alone, at least. The security model and the way most GNU/Linux distributions work helps raise the bar significantly. Remember that for those black hat dudes they don't even need source code. That's for girlies! They use decompilers and software alike. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
