Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Nov 2009 09:31 UTC
Windows Last week, security vendor Sophos published a blog post in which it said that Windows 7 was vulnerable to 8 our of 10 of the most common viruses. Microsoft has responded to these test results, which are a classic case of "scare 'm and they'll fall in line".
Thread beginning with comment 393836
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 14:31 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

The windows guy said:

Chester's final conclusion? "You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7." Well, we agree: users of any computer, on any platform, should run anti-virus software, including those running Windows 7.
(my bold)

That's simply not true. I've been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home (at least 10 hours a day in total). I've never installed an antivirus and I haven't had any virus at all.
Edit: I forgot to mention I've been using Linux for five years now (and counting).

Edited 2009-11-10 14:33 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by satan666
by big_gie on Tue 10th Nov 2009 15:07 in reply to "Comment by satan666"
big_gie Member since:
2006-01-04

That's simply not true. I've been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home (at least 10 hours a day in total). I've never installed an antivirus and I haven't had any virus at all.

As much as I would like to agree, having a false sence of security because we run linux is dangerous. Yes, there might not be any (real) virus for linux out there, but I still don't want to be a vector of transmission by giving infected files to other computers.
Of course we wont have any threat if we us something nobody else uses, because, well, nobidy care! Now that allows me to surf the web and laugh at attempts to highjack my IE or even Safari, but that does not mean that my 3 years old unpatched firefox is more secure then the sandboxed,firewalled,antivirused IE 8...

Often, when advocating linux, I ear people saying that it is more secure and does not need antivirus. This is a dangerous idea of false security.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 22:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"That's simply not true. I've been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home (at least 10 hours a day in total). I've never installed an antivirus and I haven't had any virus at all.
As much as I would like to agree, having a false sence of security because we run linux is dangerous. Yes, there might not be any (real) virus for linux out there, but I still don't want to be a vector of transmission by giving infected files to other computers. Of course we wont have any threat if we us something nobody else uses, because, well, nobidy care! Now that allows me to surf the web and laugh at attempts to highjack my IE or even Safari, but that does not mean that my 3 years old unpatched firefox is more secure then the sandboxed,firewalled,antivirused IE 8... Often, when advocating linux, I ear people saying that it is more secure and does not need antivirus. This is a dangerous idea of false security. "

Firstly, antivirus isn't security. Antivirus is trying to detect and remove a security breach after it has already compromised your system.

Secondly, the correct method of installing software on Linux is via the package manager. Package managers and the associated online repositories allow for a system where any piece of software can be audited and verified by any person on the planet. Anyone at all, not just the person who wrote the software. If everyone on the planet can see what is in a piece of software BEFORE it gets to end users, this makes it very difficult indeed to hide malware within that software.

Finally, one should examine the record. The record is AFAIK impeccable. AFAIK (and no-one has yet been able to contradict this) ... there has never been an end-user's system compromised with malware via installing open source software from package managers.

PS: On Linux, all programs by default run as a normal user. Running firefox on Linux means running it as a normal user, and hence it has no ability at all to modify or create system files or directories. All programs run as a normal user on Linux are effectively sandboxed.

Edited 2009-11-10 23:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by satan666
by Doca on Tue 10th Nov 2009 15:32 in reply to "Comment by satan666"
Doca Member since:
2006-01-30

Satan, you YET don't have to use an AV because Linux is only 01 percent of the desktop market. There is no point in f***ing just one percent of the desktop market when you can target around 90 percent. If the desktop share was very simmilar, I think you might be using an AV permanently.

Back to the subject of the news:

And there are guys over there that say "Windows is insecure" and right after that states "I don't use Windows". How ignorant can you be to make a statement like that? I've seen the same statement from a professor at Carnegie Mellon on the IT Security classes. The worst about this is that a person that gives classes about something usually dictates the culture over it and that is a serious thing.

But we all are missing the point, here. I too agree that security companies spread FUD about a lot of things based on user (lack) of knowledge.

Oh, do you see how things are? Not only the companies do that, anyone misinformed about something can state something "serious". It all depends on WHO says. And if this guy is a somewhat "misinformed" person on a somewhat big company, the information will spread. And eventually get a response and generate some discussions around the web...

So, have fun!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Devi1903 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 16:28 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Devi1903 Member since:
2009-11-05

Linux is only 01 percent of the desktop market.


I am not convinced that this is a true reflection of Linux usage. Many people use both windows and linux on a day to day basis, but would probably be considered windows users.

If the desktop share was very simmilar, I think you might be using an AV permanently.


While i have no doubt in my mind that AS linux increases its market share viruses will crop up, it is just not a simple & easy to create a virus to infect Linux as it is to create only that will infect windows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Tuishimi on Tue 10th Nov 2009 17:41 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Satan, you YET don't have to use an AV because Linux is only 01 percent of the desktop market. There is no point in f***ing just one percent of the desktop market when you can target around 90 percent. If the desktop share was very simmilar, I think you might be using an AV permanently.


It's that devil-may-care attitude that got him kicked out of heaven.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Tue 10th Nov 2009 22:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Satan, you YET don't have to use an AV because Linux is only 01 percent of the desktop market. There is no point in f***ing just one percent of the desktop market when you can target around 90 percent. If the desktop share was very simmilar, I think you might be using an AV permanently.


Actually, Linux is far more prevalent than 1%, even if we look only at the desktop market.

Linux reportedly has 32% of the netbook market, for example:

http://blogs.computerworld.com/15068/where_is_the_linux_desktop_goi...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140343/Linux_s_share_of_net...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by satan666 - clam
by jabbotts on Tue 10th Nov 2009 15:46 in reply to "Comment by satan666"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I always drop ClamAV on a box I build. No reason not to help protect the Windows machines one may be sharing files with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by satan666
by sbenitezb on Tue 10th Nov 2009 16:08 in reply to "Comment by satan666"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

I've been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home (at least 10 hours a day in total). I've never installed an antivirus and I haven't had any virus at all.


Not using an AV somehow proves that you don't get any virus? Weird. Not like a virus will show a message in the screen telling you "you are now infected".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by hollovoid on Tue 10th Nov 2009 20:01 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Exactly, I always wondered how people know they dont have viruses without "ever installing antivirus". That goes for you Mac' guys too!

Edited 2009-11-10 20:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2