On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 11:33, 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?
You tell them that Linux virus protection is _at_least_ twice as
good.
1. When a virus strikes, it runs as the user who goes to the trouble
of 'chmod-ing' the file and running it. No one else is effected. Notice
that few, if any will go to the trouble to make a file executable, then
run it, when they don't know anything about the file.
2. When a virus is known to the community, we actually DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT. No patches to hide the problem, real code to really stop the
exploit. And not six months down the road- now. Today. (Or at least as
soon as your nightly update comes in, whenever that is.)
Notice that in this community, no one has any interest in messing up
your day- when some kid comes to change that, we almost thank him,
'cause he's shown us a hole.
Linux is a very, very different world. It's not here to replace
Windows, it's here to replace _everything_. A total re-think.
Enjoy!
(Any other questions- have'em email me.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian FahrlÃnder Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ 5119262
AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
