Author Topic: Who says Norton's useless?  (Read 1442 times)

Idoru

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 981
    • View Profile
Re: Who says Norton's useless?
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2007, 07:07:17 pm »
Quote
If you can and do this you will never have problems with virus again, I asure it!

Until the point that (if ever) everyone uses Linux, its main defence against attacks from viruses is its obscurity. Yes having limited user accounts does help, as do some of the other inherent security features in Linux but if it is ever used on 90% of computers in the world it will become just as big a target as M$ is currently.

"May there only be peaceful and cheerful Earth Days to come for our beautiful Spaceship Earth as it continues to spin and circle in frigid space with its warm and fragile cargo of animate life."

lordraleigh

  • Guest
Re: Who says Norton's useless?
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2007, 07:40:50 pm »
Quote
If you can and do this you will never have problems with virus again, I asure it!

Until the point that (if ever) everyone uses Linux, its main defence against attacks from viruses is its obscurity. Yes having limited user accounts does help, as do some of the other inherent security features in Linux but if it is ever used on 90% of computers in the world it will become just as big a target as M$ is currently.

I'm not sure about that. I think that claiming Linux is just safe because of it and otherwise as unsecure as Windows is Microsoft FUD

While this is not the case...  ::) for now the main Linux "virus" is called fr33pr0n.sh (Note, you need sudo running and to be very dumb as well for this "virus" to work)  :whistling:
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/bash
echo 'H3y d00d! Typ3 anyth1ng t0 g3t fr33 pr0n!'
read
echo '1337 h4xx0r5 got u n00b! MWAMWAMWA!'
sudo dd if="/dev/zero" of="/dev/hda"

eldoth_terevan

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 512
    • View Profile
Re: Who says Norton's useless?
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2007, 07:49:25 pm »
A virus is a program that replicates and inserts its code into other executable programs to spread. Viruses do not exist under Unix, and by extension Mac OS X and Linux. It is not possible for them to exist and propigate under these operating systems, because the mechanisms for them to do so cannot function.
http://www.salvagedata.com/hard-drive-recovery-terms/

A worm or trojan is a script or compiled code that runs as a program itself and causes changes to the operating system. Worms must rely on documented or undocumented exploits to take control of the system, and the primary defense against these is hardened permissions, keeping up with the latest security patches for applications, and proper system configuration and maintenance.
http://packetstormsecurity.org/

Unix and Linux are not obscure, they are better documentented than Windows and more fully transparent. Remember, Unix has existed since about 1971 and TCP/IP since about 1969. It is because of the obscurity and proprietary schema of Windows code that the worms and trojans can do all that they can do these days. You have no need of antivirus software if you run the computer properly, understand the configuration of the operating system and are aware of what your computer does normally.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx

Norton was great back about 1988 when Peter still ran the company, but these days its usefulness is questionable... especially since it was discovered that they now use rootkit techniques to install their products. Antivirus companies make big bucks off of your fears.. big gratutious bucks for programs that you do not need anyway.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1910077,00.asp

And the process of decision making that an antivirus product uses to identify threats is spelled heuristics.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aheuristics&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official


bilbous

  • Guest
Re: Who says Norton's useless?
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2007, 03:31:49 pm »
Quote
Antivirus companies make big bucks off of your fears.. big gratutious bucks for programs that you do not need anyway.
This actually ties in to Zanzibar's thread about Acrobat. What you tend to see from software companies that get long in the tooth or suffer from too much success is program bloat. They need to keep adding features, not always necessary, to their programs in order to justify new versions with their concomitant licensing fees, as well as to fend off their leaner rivals. You end up with the kitchen sink phenomenon as more and more junk gets piled in and the code base gets harder to manage. Look at word processors for a perfect example of this. Most people do not need anything more than a simple text editor for their day to day personal use but that does not sell cds so Word and WP have become bloated hunks of incomprehensible junk and are marketed to everyone as required software when a lot of the functionality while useful in a business sense would be better dealt with separately after the text has been developed instead of during its development.