what are some good sites for statics of linux vs ms viruses, worms, and trojans?
tia.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Statistics on GNU/Linux viruses? What's next: statistics on pink unicorns? Flying pigs? Even primes other than 2? ;-)
thanks for your reply kevin. one way or other, you can always be counted on. :)
seriously. i know that they are near nil for linux, and more for ms that there are satisfied ms windows users.
i have seen statistics, but just do not recall where.
a google for '"microsoft" AND "virus" ' hits 35,800,000, in english. were as '"linux" AND "virus"' only yields 18,500,000.
did find several sites with some interesting info. nothing yet with actual comparison between the two.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
did not find a 'list' for ms as above for linux. i guess that there are just too many of them. :o)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:19:01 +0000, g geleem@bellsouth.net wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Statistics on GNU/Linux viruses? What's next: statistics on pink unicorns? Flying pigs? Even primes other than 2? ;-)
thanks for your reply kevin. one way or other, you can always be counted on. :)
seriously. i know that they are near nil for linux, and more for ms that there are satisfied ms windows users.
What are you trying to accomplish? It has been known almost from the start of virus scanning, that blacklists were a broken way to do things. So there really isn't a need to get a list of viruses or worms. If you want lists, you want lists of code that is OK to run.
Linux users can still have problems with viruses or worms. Until SELinux gets a bit better, they can still be tricked into running programs similar to how Windows users are. There are some apps that run on linux that are designed to easily execute code disquised as data. Open Office is one case where this isn't considered a bug. And there are still bugs that can be exploited being found from time to time. And things are getting worse. I see lots of complaints here about flash not working. You need to be crazy to be running flash programs from random web sites. And people are still trying to turn web browsers into an application environment instead of a simple document viewer.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:45:02AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Linux users can still have problems with viruses or worms. Until SELinux gets a bit better, they can still be tricked into running programs similar to how Windows users are. There are some apps that run on linux that are designed to easily execute code disquised as data.
The big difference between Windows and Linux is permissions. Yes, you can get infested--but the vast majority of Linux/Unix users don't run with root permissions. (Caveat: I don't know how many are careless and actually login and work as root. In the Old Days, I'm sure it was close to nil; with the influx of non-Unix/Linux users, I wonder.) The vast majority of Windows users--especially workstation and home users--have admin privs to their system. Meaning that Trojans on Win boxen usually get to modify the OS; on Linux systems, they usually only get to infest the user's environment.
And people are still trying to turn web browsers into an application environment instead of a simple document viewer.
Get used to that. Unless and until the concept of cloud computing falls into disfavor, the vendors are really, really pushing SAAS--it seems (to them) to be a way to regain their shrinking market share on software and OS sales. Once I point out that loss of Internet connectivity means shutdown of operations, and that their data is falling out of their direct control, I've not had any enthusiasm for it from clients, but.
And there are cases where it'd be nice to have the browser carry the load. F'rinstance, not having to install and configure a heavy database client on every workstation. (Unfortunately--or fortunately, if you object to browsers filling this role--there aren't any tools yet to generate complex database FEs for browsers; it's got to be coded.)
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat dihnat@dminet.com
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
What are you trying to accomplish? It has been known almost from the start of virus scanning, that blacklists were a broken way to do things. So there really isn't a need to get a list of viruses or worms. If you want lists, you want lists of code that is OK to run.
in discussions on other lists and some local friends that run ms, i would like to know numbers, not guesstimate's of what is what.
just to say to me some random number or percent is not acceptable, and i do not wish to do same.
and as for failures of 'blacklist', i do agree. my isp had you post held up in 'mail guard'. :) why, i do not know, but they do now know that it was in error.