Gizmodo says that Linux causes viruses!!

[TheMask]

palladium, is that considered to be an apology? I don´t really get the meaning...

[microchip8]

TheMask wrote:
> palladium, is that considered to be an apology? I don´t really get the
> meaning...

in addition to "constructing a small reply from the community" do you
also feel a need speak for the community in requesting me to apologize
for something? :-)

--
palladium

[saahne]

Graham Cluley at , Sophos comments:

I'm rather disappointed that Gizmodo doesn't offer more information about the threat, or some links to anti-virus products that may help its readers check and clean-up their computers. Instead, they make a rather snotty remark about how they didn't notice the infection themselves as they are running Mac and Linux computers. That doesn't really show a good level of customer care or respect for much of their readership.

I think the real problem here is that they or their vendor allowed someone to buy ad space without vetting the source properly. It has nothing to do with the operating system. Here's a detailed account of the same attack as it happened to Gawker.

[SLK021]

Instead of saying sorry we are stupid, they blame it on a penguin, the nerve of some people

[saahne]

Google's site devoted to preventing malvertising.

Scareware distributed through online advertising and by other means is now one of the leading sources of revenue for online criminals. Lots of legitimate, normally trustworthy sites have been compromised by malvertising. One good reason for not letting clueless people on computers with admin privileges (like all those users of a certain operating system that run with admin or admin approval mode accounts by default).

Also Gizmodo on malvertizing from a month before they got hit:

I think we can all agree to hate malvertising, Internet ads filled with malicious code. Someone needs to take down the companies who are putting that **** online.

You mean like, ugh, Gizmodo?

[hito_kiri]

I have heard the "Linux spreads Windows viruses" argument before. I had a class with a guy that was a hardcore Windows/Microsuck lover and had been for as long as they had been around. The main reason he was taking the class (or series of classes) was because there was a Linux portion and he wanted to learn about it, but he was still indoctrinated into Windowsdom. He always tried to argue that Windows was just as secure as Linux or Unix (or perhaps more secure) and that the only reason there were no viruses for Unix/Linux/Mac was that not enough people used them. One day he brought me a report from, Sophos I think it was, that was all about how Linux computers were a security risk because they could spread Windows viruses and you therefore needed a product that scanned for windows viruses. I was like "O.K...isn't that just an excuse for Windows not being secure?" It's like blaming someone with a strong immune system for spreading the flu to people with weak immune systems as being a health risk because the ones with weak immune systems won't wash their hands and keep drinking after the person with the strong immune system.

[Akoellh]

Originally Posted by hito_kiri

I have heard the "Linux spreads Windows viruses" argument before.

Been there, done that, the interesting question is here "Who makes such claims?"

Well, we'll see later ...

Originally Posted by hito_kiri

He always tried to argue that Windows was just as secure as Linux or Unix (or perhaps more secure)

Well, it can be as secure if configured correctly.

However

a) it is _not_ by default (or at least was not until XP with lots of open ports occupied by services 99% of all home users don't need and in Home the fact, that the first user was an automatic administrator).

b) if you really configure it securely and only try to work as unpriviledged user, it is _a lot_ less "user friendly" than linux if you want to perform an administrative task without having to switch to a full login as root. There is "RunAs" which can be compared to "su", but you have to know the admin password for that, if you don't want to give that to your users, there is nothing like sudo.

Originally Posted by hito_kiri

and that the only reason there were no viruses for Unix/Linux/Mac was that not enough people used them.

A bit of truth is in there, but it is certainly not the only and not them main reason.

The main reason for Windows being "insecure" is a bad default configuration and a user base consisting of > 90% people without awareness for security (the BOFH would call them "lusers").

Originally Posted by hito_kiri

One day he brought me a report from, Sophos I think it was, that was all about how Linux computers were a security risk because they could spread Windows viruses and you therefore needed a product that scanned for windows viruses.

Oh, what a suprise there.

An AV _company_ states that linux users should have some AV (preferably their product perhaps?) to protect others from virii?

Well, I protect Windows users from virii in a very simple way on my desktop machine.

I have a great product of my own to achieve this task.

I don't send/forward any attachments I don't trust and avoid any formats being prone to including executable code.

This product is completely free and does not even need installation, it is called "brain 1.0, common sense edition".

[Akoellh]

No that's what I call "perfect timing".

Just had a look into my mailbox and obviously somebody at Microsoft must have read my last post and decided to reward me for that.

Subject: "YOU HAVE WON THE MICROSOFT LOTTERY!!!"

(Yes, with three excalamtion marks, just to show me how much my opinion was appreciated, lovely isn't it?)

Now let's see, not much information there, but there is an attachment in the well known "doc.exe"-format.

Oh dear, I cannot open that "doc.exe" and I don't want to install wine just for that.

But hey, my good friends should know about my stroke of luck, and they can even open it for me and tell me, what I actually have won!

*Forwards message to half of his address book*

-----------------------------------------------

So you are laughing now?

Of course I missed out the "irony"-tags here, and of course you might think "No, he hopefully isn't _that_ stupid!"

No, of course not, I deleted that mail without even thinking of any "alternative", but the fact, that such mails _still_ work (and presumably will work in the future) shows, that there must be a lot of people actually being so dumb to open and/or forward such messages.

And the day such "virii" (aka "social engineering attacks" or "finding the morons of the day") would be available for linux beacuse it maybe is now "as user friendly as windows" and therefore has a bigger user base (= automatically a higher percentage of morons), this will also happen on linux.

OK, maybe not with "doc.exe", but I think you get my point.

[Chrysantine]

I wouldn't put much value on what Gizmodo thinks - they're the same people that went around a fair turning off demonstration tv's with their universal toy and caused a havoc with the presenters.

Bunch of kids, nothing more.