Internet Explorer problems?

[Zundfolge]

Gotta agree with Hoosier here, weirjf you're playing Russian Roulette (unless all you do with your computer is visit this forum and maybe play a little solitaire).

Of course my computers at home run without any anti-virus protection without any problems but then again one of them is running OSX and the other Linux Mint 10

[Byte Stryke]

One of the problems with becoming Popular
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...c-invulnerable

Does this mean doom and gloom.
Not at all, it only means that the larger the potential infection market, the larger the risk becomes. OSX has become large enough that the Malware writers are taking interest.

I would still say it is safer and more stable than windows.

[weirjf]

One of the problems with becoming Popular
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...c-invulnerable

Does this mean doom and gloom.
Not at all, it only means that the larger the potential infection market, the larger the risk becomes. OSX has become large enough that the Malware writers are taking interest.

I would still say it is safer and more stable than windows.

That's exactly it. MS is the easier and bigger target, any OS can be hacked/cracked/infected/exploited if you put enough time and energy into making the tool.

[clublights]

One of the problems with becoming Popular
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...c-invulnerable

Does this mean doom and gloom.
Not at all, it only means that the larger the potential infection market, the larger the risk becomes. OSX has become large enough that the Malware writers are taking interest.

I would still say it is safer and more stable than windows.

my only problem with that "virus" is you still have to type in your admin password.

never type in your password unless you know why your doing it .........

if your really paranoid.... make a second account on the machine and give it no admin rights and use that for surfing and general computing.

[Zundfolge]

Popularity of the OS isn't why Windows has more virii than any other OS, the main reason is the effing Registry.

Do away with the Registry (which doesn't exist in any of the *nix based OSs) and you eliminate most of the virus problems

[Byte Stryke]

Popularity of the OS isn't why Windows has more virii than any other OS, the main reason is the effing Registry.

Do away with the Registry (which doesn't exist in any of the *nix based OSs) and you eliminate most of the virus problems

As with anything, when you build a better mousetrap, the mouse simply evolves.

[weirjf]

Popularity of the OS isn't why Windows has more virii than any other OS, the main reason is the effing Registry.

Do away with the Registry (which doesn't exist in any of the *nix based OSs) and you eliminate most of the virus problems

Yeah... I'm 100% certain that with 85-90% of all computers running a windows OS that it has SOME deciding factor in what direction virus makers want to place their time and effort.



there's all kinds of stuff you can do with /etc to wreak havoc

[Zundfolge]

Yeah... I'm 100% certain that with 85-90% of all computers running a windows OS that it has SOME deciding factor in what direction virus makers want to place their time and effort.

Since most of the servers that make up the internet backbone are UNIX machines it would actually make sense to target THEM over Windows desktop machines, yet they don't anywhere near as often.

Windows, just because of the way its designed is easier to target with viruses than any other operating system. I'm sure its popularity has something to do with it but primarily its the ease with which it can be compromised that draws the virus writers and more to the point the way Windows is designed makes spreading from machine to machine easier, thus making Windows a bigger target.

Those few virii that have successfully infected *NIX machines just don't propagate as easily and die off before they get wide spread.

[weirjf]

Since most of the servers that make up the internet backbone are UNIX machines it would actually make sense to target THEM over Windows desktop machines, yet they don't anywhere near as often.

Windows, just because of the way its designed is easier to target with viruses than any other operating system. I'm sure its popularity has something to do with it but primarily its the ease with which it can be compromised that draws the virus writers and more to the point the way Windows is designed makes spreading from machine to machine easier, thus making Windows a bigger target.

Those few virii that have successfully infected *NIX machines just don't propagate as easily and die off before they get wide spread.

So... you're trying to tell me that it would make more sense to go after a backbone server that is protected by several hardware firewalls, data logging, honey pots and monitored real-time (I don't CARE what the OS is) than desktops with people that click on anything, download anything, visit any site, don't update their OS/Apps, etc?

You put Linux (any version) on 90% of the desktops out there and you would see how quickly the virus comunity can come up with exploits to get your information and put them on every gray site. Some of the garbage is just for fun but the really impressive codes are about making money. Target the 90% or target the 10% when the all mighty $ is involved.

No computer or OS is secure unless you put it in a box of concrete and drop it into the ocean.

[Hoosier]

Of course my computers at home run without any anti-virus protection without any problems but then again one of them is running OSX and the other Linux Mint 10

Someone else mentioned virii for OSX, let me add that running Mint reduces your threats of Virus's or Malware, you open new risks similar to those servers face. It's much less likely, since you probably don't have that Linux machine sitting on the internet directly, but if you do (or have DMZ or static routes to it) make sure that it is locked down.

I'd suggest installing fail2ban (apt-get install -y fail2ban or yum install fail2ban) at a minimum.

I <3 UNIX, it's what I do all day long.

H.