Do we have a Boinc virus?

Message boards : Number crunching : Do we have a Boinc virus?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 27 · Next

AuthorMessage
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13720
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 247686 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 3:03:10 UTC - in response to Message 247581.  

In contrast, the *nix OSes are not perfect, but they are many years ahead for reliability and usability.

*nix Oses ahead for usability???
That's the funniest thing i've read for quite a while.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 247686 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 247698 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 3:15:59 UTC - in response to Message 247686.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 3:46:07 UTC

In contrast, the *nix OSes are not perfect, but they are many years ahead for reliability and usability.

*nix Oses ahead for usability???
That's the funniest thing i've read for quite a while.


I find running Linux easy.

Usability is in the eye of the beholder. MS is way behind when it comes to an oeprating system that I can do with what I want, way behind in it's ability to allow the user to have control. Usability (to me) means that my machine does what I want it to do, looks like I want it to, and behaves like *I* want it to. And if I don't like how something looks, runs, operates...I fix it/change it myself, and don't have to wait for a fix from the MS Sheeple Pleasers. I am not a slave to my OS (Windows), my OS (Linux) is slave to me. The only thing my Linux machine has in common with the next Linux machine is kernel. Other than that, it's mine.

That's usability. But, I am not just part of the regular run of the mill masses...I enjoy my own freedom, because Linux gives me the opportunity to have it my way.

For edit: *And* I can take work home. I can work all I want on that Office Excel spreadsheet, Power Point presentation and even Word Documents....no problem in Linux.
ID: 247698 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 247908 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 11:42:34 UTC - in response to Message 247698.  

I find running Linux easy.

Usability is in the eye of the beholder. MS is way behind when it comes to an oeprating system that I can do with what I want, way behind in it's ability to allow the user to have control. Usability (to me) means that my machine does what I want it to do, looks like I want it to, and behaves like *I* want it to. And if I don't like how something looks, runs, operates...I fix it/change it myself, and don't have to wait for a fix from the MS Sheeple Pleasers. I am not a slave to my OS (Windows), my OS (Linux) is slave to me. The only thing my Linux machine has in common with the next Linux machine is kernel. Other than that, it's mine.


True, but YOU, however, know how to use Linux to it's full potential. Sit old Ma & PA Kettle in front of a Linux box, and they would be totally LOST. I work at a computer store, and over 95% of the people who walk in barely know how to turn a computer on. And for most folks, trying to teach them how to list a shell script, make it executable, and then execute it would be close to impossible. Some people can't even be talked through setting up a dial-up Internet connection in Windows over the phone. This category accounts for over 45% of our new members. So they end up having to bring their 'puter down and have US set it up.

Or are you trying to say that if a person can't comprehend Linux, then they have no right to own a computer?

I remember when 8 MEGS of RAM used to cost HUNDREDS of dollars. Since the release of Windows 95, when that OS made computers easy to use for NON-geeks, prices began dropping RAPIDLY on computers and computer hardware, simply because they were being mass produced because of increased demand, because Windows 95 and above made computers easy enough for even old Ma & Pa Kettle to send email to their granddaughter. Linux is great if you have the technical expertise to master it. But for the people who do not have the time or inclination or tech savvy to learn Linux, there will ALWAYS be Windows or one of it's descendants. I have a couple of Linux boxes, but I will always run a few Windows machines, strictly for the software availability and the convienience of it.

And as long as both OS's exist, there will always be the arguement over which is _better_. It will always boil down to personal preference, and proponants of both systems will argue about this forever. It's like religion. Which faith is better? It's a personal choice. But we are going WAY OT now. Since the problem that started this whole thread has now been resolved, I would kindly suggest that we just get back to having fun. If you still feel the need to argue about Linux and Windows, there has been another thread created for that :). If there are more concerns about the Trojan/virus that was the sole purpose of this thread, I would suggest to the mods that this thread be closed and a new thread be opened, for the sake of the users that are still on dial-up.

Regards, Daniel.
ID: 247908 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 247917 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 12:18:15 UTC - in response to Message 247908.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 12:21:01 UTC

I find running Linux easy.

Usability is in the eye of the beholder. MS is way behind when it comes to an oeprating system that I can do with what I want, way behind in it's ability to allow the user to have control. Usability (to me) means that my machine does what I want it to do, looks like I want it to, and behaves like *I* want it to. And if I don't like how something looks, runs, operates...I fix it/change it myself, and don't have to wait for a fix from the MS Sheeple Pleasers. I am not a slave to my OS (Windows), my OS (Linux) is slave to me. The only thing my Linux machine has in common with the next Linux machine is kernel. Other than that, it's mine.


True, but YOU, however, know how to use Linux to it's full potential. Sit old Ma & PA Kettle in front of a Linux box, and they would be totally LOST. I work at a computer store, and over 95% of the people who walk in barely know how to turn a computer on. And for most folks, trying to teach them how to list a shell script, make it executable, and then execute it would be close to impossible. Some people can't even be talked through setting up a dial-up Internet connection in Windows over the phone. This category accounts for over 45% of our new members. So they end up having to bring their 'puter down and have US set it up.

Or are you trying to say that if a person can't comprehend Linux, then they have no right to own a computer?

I remember when 8 MEGS of RAM used to cost HUNDREDS of dollars. Since the release of Windows 95, when that OS made computers easy to use for NON-geeks, prices began dropping RAPIDLY on computers and computer hardware, simply because they were being mass produced because of increased demand, because Windows 95 and above made computers easy enough for even old Ma & Pa Kettle to send email to their granddaughter. Linux is great if you have the technical expertise to master it. But for the people who do not have the time or inclination or tech savvy to learn Linux, there will ALWAYS be Windows or one of it's descendants. I have a couple of Linux boxes, but I will always run a few Windows machines, strictly for the software availability and the convienience of it.

And as long as both OS's exist, there will always be the arguement over which is _better_. It will always boil down to personal preference, and proponants of both systems will argue about this forever. It's like religion. Which faith is better? It's a personal choice. But we are going WAY OT now. Since the problem that started this whole thread has now been resolved, I would kindly suggest that we just get back to having fun. If you still feel the need to argue about Linux and Windows, there has been another thread created for that :). If there are more concerns about the Trojan/virus that was the sole purpose of this thread, I would suggest to the mods that this thread be closed and a new thread be opened, for the sake of the users that are still on dial-up.

Regards, Daniel.


1. I did not even remotely imply "that if a person can't comprehend Linux, then they have no right to own a computer."

2. Don't ask anyone to leave a thread..there is no argument..there are personal positions on the topic. Don't preach to me about usability, postulate your own position, then ask me to drop it and move to another thread. You're not the opinion police.

EDIT: Removed some things.
ID: 247917 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 247935 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 12:58:14 UTC - in response to Message 247908.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 13:57:21 UTC

I find running Linux easy.

Usability is in the eye of the beholder. MS is way behind when it comes to an oeprating system that I can do with what I want, way behind in it's ability to allow the user to have control. Usability (to me) means that my machine does...

True, but YOU, however, know how to use Linux to it's full potential. Sit old Ma & PA Kettle in front of a Linux box, and they would be totally LOST...

And all those points are important.

Brief comments:

1: Sit old Ma & Pa in front of a Linux box (Gnome or KDE desktop), show them where the icons are, and they are equally happy. (More so: no viruses, so they can click anywhere.) They likely wouldn't even know whether it was Linux or Windows or what the difference was;

2: From what I've experienced, MS and associates coercively steer you into what MS and those associates want for you (spend more money). Works ok if you like their look and feel and way of working. It can be frustratingly difficult should you want to do something different;

3: There are Linux distros that work straight from the CD. No shell script hacking required. Ubuntu and Knoppix are two examples. They install very much faster than Windows also. Never understood why WinXP takes an hour or so even on fast machines.

4: You can even make the Linux desktop look exactly like WinXP...! (If you wanted to for some reason... Don't tell Bill...)

5: And if you like the "free" (no cash) part, MS seem to be suspiciously lax about piracy... But then, Linux is "free" in all respects in the first place.


To stay on topic: I don't think we'll be seeing any Boinc viruses on *nix (Linux) systems.

As for the never ending argument about which is better, Windows or Linux, well my view is that both have their merits and problems. Since the days of Win95C, that balance sharply shifted over to Linux being more reliable and easily usable for myself and friends. (Even though I give IT support for Windows.)


Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 247935 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 248038 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 18:29:11 UTC - in response to Message 247657.  


Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin

Martin,

Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.

Do I have that correct?

-- Ned

ID: 248038 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 248098 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 20:02:53 UTC - in response to Message 248038.  


Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin

Martin,

Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.

Do I have that correct?

-- Ned



Define install.

Then I will blow your theory out of the water.
ID: 248098 · Report as offensive
Profile MikeSW17
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 1603
Credit: 2,700,523
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 248109 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 20:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 247657.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 20:29:55 UTC


Yes there are people dumb enough out there to not even realise what a program or executable is, let alone what is on their host and what is on some server... No deception required even!

The main point still stands. A user should be able to use their system as they wish, without fear of deception or whatever hijacking their computer.

I pretty much have that here with this Linux system.



And you only have that because nobody had bothered to target the *nix community, because the the proportion of users in that community that will fall for 'Deceptions' is small.

Take away everybodys windows, give them all *nix systems, and they'll be millions who will fall for every trick in the book, and their systems will be just a compromised as their current windows ones are.


Note that you can still have executables run for the sake of fancy web stuff. Your system (OS) should use a properly sandboxed java for example rather than some rampant infectious ActiveX. (Yes, you can get additional Windows bolt-on anti-virus and "internet security" to catch the presently known exploits, but that is like trying to plug holes in a colander!)

The OS can enforce good behaviour, and totally defeat attempts to install software by an unprivileged user.


Show me a home user (for that matter any user) that will accept not being able to install whatever they want when the want - Remember it's a "Personal Computer" - it's MINE, I do on it what I want.

Put any restriction on them, and thy'll just login as Administartor all the time , they can't be bothered to login/out. End Security.


A major problem with Windows for the user is the many ways in which executables can be run without that user ever knowing... Ideal for many kinds of maliciousness.


Because the users want it that easy way, the don't want to have to save the attachments of mail somewhere then open a program then open the document as 3 separate functions (most can't work out where they saves something after 5 seconds anyway) - why do I have to click 6 times when one will do? That same mentality would be bought to *nix.


The sort of deception required to get a *nix user to change to "root" (if they can), and then to go through a number of steps to then infect their system, is many times more difficult than the present (easy) Windows exploits. You can argue that some of the Linux distros thwart even that deception (LiveCDs).


More correctly, 'The sort of deception required to get a savvy *nix user to change to "root"'.
And, referring to my earlier comment, the *masses* simply won't accept a complicated way of installing a new post-it-note pop-up application. If it's difficult to do, they'll just use priviledged accounts all the time.


Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin


Now, recalling teenage experience, many many years ago before PCs had even been thought of and mega-buck mainframes were the norm. It was rediculously easy to trick mainframe and super-mini operators and system managers - supposedly the computer elite - into anything from giving out passwords over the phone, to persuading them to run some amusing (on the surface) game program (sent to them on punch cards or tape!) on the system console with full privs. I just don't believe anything has changed - it may be harder to find a target, but they're just as easy to hit now as then.
Go round any large office today and I'll guarantee you'll find a username/password written on a blotter, ot the bottom of the internal phone list.

/EDIT
Really it boils down to it has nothing to do with the operating system, it's the users. Hackers have long referred to Human Enginerring.
You can write and re-write operating systems as much as you like, but you cannot re-design the user.

ID: 248109 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 248110 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 20:26:10 UTC - in response to Message 248098.  

Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin
Martin,

Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.

Do I have that correct?

-- Ned
Define install.

Then I will blow your theory out of the water.

Not wanting to gang up on anyone ( ;-) ) but yes, that is correct and the hint is in what "install" is.

In Linux there is the "chroot" feature. There are various other features that by default 'sandbox' malware into impotence. And that is after the fact that 'normal' users cannot 'install' any system software in the first place.

In Linux, you cannot 'accidentally' or 'unknowingly' 'install' software by just surfing the web or reading your email. Open source software repositories are checked and protected with encryption keys so that all software is "signed" by the author(s). Any malware there would quickly succumb to peer checking (and has done). There's even teams of ruthlessly dedicated people running checks on all the stuff there with a good competitive spirit for finding anything wrong!


So your hypothesis is? What loopholes are there?

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 248110 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 248112 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 20:31:55 UTC - in response to Message 248110.  

Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin
Martin,

Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.

Do I have that correct?

-- Ned
Define install.

Then I will blow your theory out of the water.

Not wanting to gang up on anyone ( ;-) ) but yes, that is correct and the hint is in what "install" is.

In Linux there is the "chroot" feature. There are various other features that by default 'sandbox' malware into impotence. And that is after the fact that 'normal' users cannot 'install' any system software in the first place.

In Linux, you cannot 'accidentally' or 'unknowingly' 'install' software by just surfing the web or reading your email. Open source software repositories are checked and protected with encryption keys so that all software is "signed" by the author(s). Any malware there would quickly succumb to peer checking (and has done). There's even teams of ruthlessly dedicated people running checks on all the stuff there with a good competitive spirit for finding anything wrong!


So your hypothesis is? What loopholes are there?

Regards,
Martin



Was that directed at me? If so, I agree with you...because that is what I was alluding to.

But as the other author pointed out, most folks would end up just running everything as root...(like idiots they think that will alleviate any permission problems...) and the problems will then start.

A regular user...nah...you don't accidently install anything. The system won't let you install anything. No reason to fear going to websites that "do things" to your machine behind your back. Hell, I have more fun surfing the web and tricking remote machines into thinking I am Windows so I can check out the crap they try to get my machine to grab/pick up.

GOOD TIMES
ID: 248112 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 248172 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 22:00:32 UTC - in response to Message 248098.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 22:01:15 UTC


Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception. This can be done, and has been done for many years now. Windows is a notable exception.

Regards,
Martin

Martin,

Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.

Do I have that correct?

-- Ned



Define install.

Then I will blow your theory out of the water.

Any permutation of "load" or "execute" -- any set of steps that causes the instructions in a file or files to be executed, up to and including any special log-ins or passwords, including anything necessary for someone with the highest priveleges on the machine to add something to the machine that can be run or executed in any way.
ID: 248172 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 248179 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 22:08:08 UTC - in response to Message 248112.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 22:10:10 UTC

Was that directed at me? If so, I agree with you...because that is what I was alluding to.
Sorry, ambiguities of human language!

But as the other author pointed out, most folks would end up just running everything as root...(like idiots they think that will alleviate any permission problems...) and the problems will then start.

A regular user...nah...you don't accidently install anything. The system won't let you install anything. ...
There is a move with some Linux distros where there is no "root" user as such ("sudo" used instead). Regular users get to safely install whatever applications they wish from trusted signed repositories. (And no proprietary 'sponsored' intrusive "Digital (non-)Rights Management" needed!)

Ubuntu is one such example. Knoppix and Damned Small Linux have something similar in that 'missing apps' are automatically downloaded. I would guess that Mandriva will introduce something similar since 'amalgamating' with Connectiva and Linspire(?). (Might already be there since I last looked!)

Great flexibility and still no need for viruses or trojans or whatever malware.

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 248179 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 248186 - Posted: 14 Feb 2006, 22:20:43 UTC - in response to Message 248179.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2006, 22:40:51 UTC

Was that directed at me? If so, I agree with you...because that is what I was alluding to.
Sorry, ambiguities of human language!

But as the other author pointed out, most folks would end up just running everything as root...(like idiots they think that will alleviate any permission problems...) and the problems will then start.

A regular user...nah...you don't accidently install anything. The system won't let you install anything. ...
There is a move with some Linux distros where there is no "root" user as such ("sudo" used instead). Regular users get to safely install whatever applications they wish from trusted signed repositories. (And no proprietary 'sponsored' intrusive "Digital (non-)Rights Management" needed!)

Ubuntu is one such example. Knoppix and Damned Small Linux have something similar in that 'missing apps' are automatically downloaded. I would guess that Mandriva will introduce something similar since 'amalgamating' with Connectiva and Linspire(?). (Might already be there since I last looked!)

Great flexibility and still no need for viruses or trojans or whatever malware.

Regards,
Martin


yeah I have been following that closely...I think its only going to open up a can of worms. Maybe I am old school, who knows. This isn't the kind of change I look forward to, it will be a hard sell.

For Edit: I still don't see how they are going to get away with not having root. Who knows...I use my sudoers file and what not...and most of the time I can just su most things.

ID: 248186 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 248267 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 0:29:13 UTC - in response to Message 248186.  
Last modified: 15 Feb 2006, 0:32:00 UTC

...There is a move with some Linux distros where there is no "root" user as such ("sudo" used instead). Regular users get to safely install whatever applications they wish from trusted signed repositories. (And no proprietary 'sponsored' intrusive "Digital (non-)Rights Management" needed!)...
yeah I have been following that closely...I think its only going to open up a can of worms. Maybe I am old school, who knows. This isn't the kind of change I look forward to, it will be a hard sell. ...

That's another beauty of Open Source. Either the idea works well and evolves, or the bad idea quickly dies. Then other distros/projects pick up the developer interest for better and greater things.

This is all a very natural selection and evolution that is driven equally by both the users and the developers.

I'll admit that some of the new automation that 'hides' operation from the users gives me the jitters also. However, if that can be done and still maintain good security, then it is all a very good thing to let more of the population ease into a more friendly Linux world.

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 248267 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 248273 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 0:38:17 UTC - in response to Message 248267.  

...There is a move with some Linux distros where there is no "root" user as such ("sudo" used instead). Regular users get to safely install whatever applications they wish from trusted signed repositories. (And no proprietary 'sponsored' intrusive "Digital (non-)Rights Management" needed!)...
yeah I have been following that closely...I think its only going to open up a can of worms. Maybe I am old school, who knows. This isn't the kind of change I look forward to, it will be a hard sell. ...

That's another beauty of Open Source. Either the idea works well and evolves, or the bad idea quickly dies. Then other distros/projects pick up the developer interest for better and greater things.

This is all a very natural selection and evolution that is driven equally by both the users and the developers.

I'll admit that some of the new automation that 'hides' operation from the users gives me the jitters also. However, if that can be done and still maintain good security, then it is all a very good thing to let more of the population ease into a more friendly Linux world.

Regards,
Martin



I must ba a control freak, LOL
ID: 248273 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 248286 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 1:21:08 UTC - in response to Message 248172.  
Last modified: 15 Feb 2006, 1:22:35 UTC

Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception...
...Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.
Define install...
Any permutation of "load" or "execute" -- any set of steps that causes the instructions in a file or files to be executed, up to and including any special log-ins or passwords,... to add something to the machine that can be run or executed in any way.

Ned, that's very broad and includes web content and document formatting and even music and video aswel as full application programs.

So, your point/question is for Windows vs Linux (or *nix)?

Regards,
Martin


(Sorry Ned, missed your post for a while.)

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 248286 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 248668 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 21:43:47 UTC - in response to Message 248286.  

Simply put: The OS should be secure enough that it can survive any idiocy by the user, including deception...
...Your argument is as follows:

Assume that there is some hypothetical Linux user that lacks clue. A user that by some stretch of imagination decides to install a program that is malware.

Under no circumstances should Linux allow that user to install that program.
Define install...
Any permutation of "load" or "execute" -- any set of steps that causes the instructions in a file or files to be executed, up to and including any special log-ins or passwords,... to add something to the machine that can be run or executed in any way.

Ned, that's very broad and includes web content and document formatting and even music and video aswel as full application programs.

So, your point/question is for Windows vs Linux (or *nix)?

Regards,
Martin


(Sorry Ned, missed your post for a while.)

Your earlier statement was (paraphrased) that the OS should decide what could or could not be "run" -- and at that point the discussion degraded into a semantic argument around words like "install" and "execute" and that argument continues with this post.

Going back to this post I'll ask again: who should be allowed to decide what runs on your machines?
ID: 248668 · Report as offensive
Anton Faern

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 1
Credit: 4,621,669
RAC: 0
United States
Message 248719 - Posted: 15 Feb 2006, 23:49:56 UTC - in response to Message 247667.  


Note Mac's lack of popularity, because with just about every OS change you need new Hardware and program versions, and hence high cost of ownership. And if you don't believe that just go to the help desk and see the number of posts from owner's of pre OS X machines unhappy because they can no longer partake in BOINC. But I assume that as BOINC/Seti runs on Win95 it is probably usable with DOS only.

...
...

Until other OS's are easy, hardware is cheap and you can take work home without problem's windows is here to stay. Even if the method's used by MS to get to there present position were devious and underhand, like charging less than a pound sterling per employee to have a company with 25,000 employee's to standardise on Win 3.1.1 and MS office programs.

Andy


Up to that point you were fairly accurate. In regard to Macintosh and "just about every OS change" the hardware that is being "abandoned" by Apple is very old. OS 10.4 (released last year) effectively dropped support for machines manufactured prior to mid 1998, a move Microsoft made in 2001 with Windows XP (see minimum requirements for install). The users of pre-OSX machines are either A) using extremely old hardware or B) using a machine that originally shipped with OSX and chose to use OS9 for the familiar feel or apps that have not been updated in the last 4 years.


Hardware is cheap with linux and with low end Macintosh systems. Show me a PC with near high end equipment and a 17" flat panel for $1299 bundled with full versions of 4-5 software titles that cost $50+ each, and you'll have something comparable to the entry level iMac. As for being able to take work home, pehaps you've heard of OpenOffice, or MS Office (Mac) -- after all Word and Excel were on the Mac for 3 years before they were on PC. You can take work home no matter what OS they use at work, and no matter what OS you use at home.
ID: 248719 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 248750 - Posted: 16 Feb 2006, 1:24:33 UTC - in response to Message 248668.  

Your earlier statement was (paraphrased) that the OS should decide what could or could not be "run" -- and at that point the discussion degraded into a semantic argument around words like "install" and "execute" and that argument continues with this post.

Going back to this post I'll ask again: who should be allowed to decide what runs on your machines?

That's the wrong question.

The OS system architecture can be designed such that you can use your computer and surf the web in any way you choose and be free from Microsoft style viruses and other malware.

If a user wishes to install specific new software, that can be done also and secured with digital signatures.

Here we have two possible scenarios. You could have the installer program refuse to accept anything other than signed programs from trusted repositories. Or you could allow anything (and so risk deception to install malware).

That second case can be made so blatent and obvious so as to make deception very difficult and hence unlikely.

And with all that, you can still have gimicky web applets and other "executables" run and all safely restricted so that they cannot replicate and cannot do other than minor non-permanent irritation.

I've already said that Linux for example isn't perfect. However it is good enough that there are no viable viruses of any kind "in the wild" that I know of. In contrast, Microsoft Windows continues to be an infested compromised nightmare!

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 248750 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 248755 - Posted: 16 Feb 2006, 1:29:15 UTC - in response to Message 248750.  

In contrast, Microsoft Windows continues to be an infested compromised nightmare!

Regards,
Martin

Martin,
I've been watching you post for about a year or so...... I'm starting to think you just might be a linux fan. I have more time to continue to watch though and will know for sure in a year or two. LOL

tony
ID: 248755 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 27 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Do we have a Boinc virus?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.