Virus Attack on 3rd Feb 2006!!

falcon · 2nd February 2006, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLK

my father, could not update his office comp today.... so .. tomorrow he won't switch it on

You can if you change the date in the BIOS to 4th and then are careful not to let the comp clock get synchronised via lan or the net...

adit1329 · 2nd February 2006, 20:40

people shift to apple....no fear of crashes and worms, no data loss no problems

n_aditya · 2nd February 2006, 23:02

get your PC to practise safe cyber sex

adit1329 · 3rd February 2006, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by n_aditya

get your PC to practise safe cyber sex

naughty, naughty...................

hell_on_wheels · 3rd February 2006, 00:46

windows is definitely vulnarable to such probs but the other available OS's are not as user friendly as windows...
Some precautionary measures will keep u safe...
Its like comparing Nokia & Sony Ericcson

adit1329 · 3rd February 2006, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by hell_on_wheels

windows is definitely vulnarable to such probs but the other available OS's are not as user friendly as windows...
Some precautionary measures will keep u safe...
Its like comparing Nokia & Sony Ericcson

apple OS is quite user friendly..alsoit has only one mouse button..so no confusiion if 2, 3 or multiple mouse buttons

tsk1979 · 3rd February 2006, 11:12

Wrong.
There are viruses for linux too. but they dont work because of the way Linux or any unix architechture is.
Unix based systems have been around since 1970s. Today also majority of the professional heavy duty computing world, i.e. your web servers, mission critical apps etc., run unix. Windows is mostly in Corporate manager environments and home user.
A virus which can actually damage the unix based systems will have much greater impact and cause much larger havoc.

As for why we dont have so much damaging things on linux, the reason is that in linux user mode is completely isolated from admin stuff. Where it isnt you have these vunerabilities(php/mysql has lots of these).

navin · 3rd February 2006, 12:08

tsk, I think it is the way linux's (unix) kernel and shell are structured. The kernel in Unix is sacred. In Windows they had to allow other developers access to the kernel. Windows XP has some work arounds to this but access is still available.

Anyway I feel there are enough smart programmers aroud that can find a way to infect a Linux machine if it achieved their objective. Today the object of most virus writers is to either show off (gain notoriety in their community), do damage (malicious), or just plain become a nuisance. Fortunately most of them have not gravitated to more organised methods of hacking/virus/trojan/worm creation.

Attacking the Unix (BSD, Linux, etc.) platform is probably too much work for too little return for these guys.

Disclaimer: I am no computer expert so I could be totally wrong in what i said above. Java to me is still an island in South East Asia.

tsk1979 · 3rd February 2006, 12:23

Infecting a unix machine is not difficult. But making the infection self spread like a wildwire is a problem. If you make an exploit which can infect unix systems and spread just like windows you will cause much more damage as you will take down the Banking, financial, stock markets, mission critical. Infact the damage would be so much that current windows infections will seem like minor nuisanse.
Even Linux kernel allows developers access, in fact you have the source code available. You can modify the kernel to your own needs. But the architechture ensures that if you open a malicious program as a normal user the worst you can do is get your own files corrupted, in a windows system you will get the entire system corrupted. So its rather a question of architechture of the system than the popularity.
That said there are plenty of exploits on unix world. Rootkits, fire sharing exploits. Heck my website got hit due to a drupal vunerability. But the architechture ensures that other users were safe, and the infection could not spread.

SLK · 3rd February 2006, 15:05

One interesting link... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/

This one is pro Linux... though mentions some good points.

One of the points to note is .. there is a tradeoff between security and ease of use... and when we talk about ease of use .. it somehow comes down to the user to take care of security when he's enjoying that ease with windows.

ALMOST all the attacks can be avoided even in windows if the user just knows the risk points.

I for once have an antivirus installed in my system but its never on auto-protect mode, so basically there is no antivirus or anti-spyware. All I have are 2 firewalls... configured well in detail. Also a few registry keys locked out!.... and now if I execute viruses... they don't do any damage (I've experienced some exceptions as well). I know all my the running processes by name .. any outsider there has to go!

Antivirus slow down my computer more than 50%... its just not worth it!.... Symantec definition file has reached almost 11MB.

sbasak · 3rd February 2006, 15:11

It is true that there are viruses in Linux/Unix as well. But they are never widespread. Even if all the people start using Linux, the *nix virus will never be wild.

Reasons are:

Unlike Windows, *nix has many flavors (say Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE, Knoppix etc.) Usually in Windows an EXE works in 98/NT/XP/2K everywhere. But in *nix, each "executable" is specific to particular *nix version. So, and EXE in *nix can't propagate so easily!

*nix is based on strong security feature from ground level. Usually, most *nix logs the user as "non root" user (ie. admin). So, they will always have limited access to system critical files. Yes, it is always possible to log in as root. But that's definitely a deterrant for viruses/trojans.

In Windows, file becomes execuable by extension! That's dangerous. In *nix, it becomes execuable by permission. Unless you give execute permission to a file, it can't do anything!

*nix is heterogenous ( = more varities). Windows is homogenous. Even in real life, a heterogeneous system is much less likely to be wiped out by biological viruses & bacteria!

So, if you are still not using Linux, give it a try... you can simply run from CD/DVD & USB drive (without touching your hard disk).

Last but not the least,

in your life, you drive so many cars. But why use Windows always?
Running Windows only is like driving/riding a Ford (or any other make) for lifetime!

SLK · 3rd February 2006, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbasak

So, if you are still not using Linux, give it a try... you can simply run from CD/DVD & USB drive (without touching your hard disk).

Is there a way to save the settings one does in this CD session?.. I mean.. i got a little complex network setup here... so.. it takes.. 15 mins.. for me to setup everytime!
First time.. I tried Linux was when I had a 286 or 486... so in those days probably linux wasn't of my liking...

tsk1979 · 3rd February 2006, 15:30

Some correct points, some wrong
If I have a executable linked with gcc 2.9x it will work on all flavours of linux with 2.9x libs
Similarly that linked with 3.x will work with systems with 3.x libs
Nothing to do with gentoo, ubuntoo etc.,
Infact Binaries created on my 32bit redhat install work on my 64bit gentoo too since I have 32bit emul libs.
If you download firefox or any other app like that you will see you get .tar.gz for either linux with gcc 3.xor linux with gcc 2.9.x.

navin · 3rd February 2006, 15:34

Linux is slowly becomming homeogenous. most people i know have Red Hat.

sbasak · 3rd February 2006, 15:38

Quote:

Is there a way to save the settings one does in this CD session?..

Yes! It's possible.

You can boot up from CD/DVD and save your settings in USB drive

If the hard disk is FAT, you can save files there directly from Linux.
But if the hard disk is NTFS (Win 2K/NT/XP), Linux can't write there yet.

However, it is possible to create a Linux image file in NTFS (from Windows using special programs included with Linux distros) where you can save your settings. Basically Linux can so far write in NTFS as long as file size doens't change and the file is already created.

So, basically that single file system works like a full ext2 filesystem under Linux.
Writing in NTFS from Linux is still not mature. For me, Puppy Linux worked fine but Knoppix failed.

Anyway, you can always save settings in USB disk (they are usually FAT anyway).

Some Linux versions can even use the same multisession DVD-RW (from which it booted) to store the settings in it. However, I've not tested any one of them.

2nd February 2006, 20:40	#17
adit1329 BHPian Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bangalore Posts: 346 Thanked: 3 Times	people shift to apple....no fear of crashes and worms, no data loss no problems
	() Thanks

2nd February 2006, 23:02	#18
n_aditya Senior - BHPian Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Namma Bengaluru Posts: 5,348 Thanked: 3,684 Times View My Garage	get your PC to practise safe cyber sex
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 00:46	#20
hell_on_wheels Newbie Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 24 Thanked: 0 Times	windows is definitely vulnarable to such probs but the other available OS's are not as user friendly as windows... Some precautionary measures will keep u safe... Its like comparing Nokia & Sony Ericcson
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 11:12	#22
tsk1979 Team-BHP Support Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 23,717 Thanked: 22,825 Times View My Garage	Wrong. There are viruses for linux too. but they dont work because of the way Linux or any unix architechture is. Unix based systems have been around since 1970s. Today also majority of the professional heavy duty computing world, i.e. your web servers, mission critical apps etc., run unix. Windows is mostly in Corporate manager environments and home user. A virus which can actually damage the unix based systems will have much greater impact and cause much larger havoc. As for why we dont have so much damaging things on linux, the reason is that in linux user mode is completely isolated from admin stuff. Where it isnt you have these vunerabilities(php/mysql has lots of these).
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 12:08	#23
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,199 Thanked: 9,306 Times	tsk, I think it is the way linux's (unix) kernel and shell are structured. The kernel in Unix is sacred. In Windows they had to allow other developers access to the kernel. Windows XP has some work arounds to this but access is still available. Anyway I feel there are enough smart programmers aroud that can find a way to infect a Linux machine if it achieved their objective. Today the object of most virus writers is to either show off (gain notoriety in their community), do damage (malicious), or just plain become a nuisance. Fortunately most of them have not gravitated to more organised methods of hacking/virus/trojan/worm creation. Attacking the Unix (BSD, Linux, etc.) platform is probably too much work for too little return for these guys. Disclaimer: I am no computer expert so I could be totally wrong in what i said above. Java to me is still an island in South East Asia.
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 12:23	#24
tsk1979 Team-BHP Support Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 23,717 Thanked: 22,825 Times View My Garage	Infecting a unix machine is not difficult. But making the infection self spread like a wildwire is a problem. If you make an exploit which can infect unix systems and spread just like windows you will cause much more damage as you will take down the Banking, financial, stock markets, mission critical. Infact the damage would be so much that current windows infections will seem like minor nuisanse. Even Linux kernel allows developers access, in fact you have the source code available. You can modify the kernel to your own needs. But the architechture ensures that if you open a malicious program as a normal user the worst you can do is get your own files corrupted, in a windows system you will get the entire system corrupted. So its rather a question of architechture of the system than the popularity. That said there are plenty of exploits on unix world. Rootkits, fire sharing exploits. Heck my website got hit due to a drupal vunerability. But the architechture ensures that other users were safe, and the infection could not spread.
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 15:05	#25
SLK Senior - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: DL XX XX XXXX Posts: 1,634 Thanked: 1,011 Times	One interesting link... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/ This one is pro Linux... though mentions some good points. One of the points to note is .. there is a tradeoff between security and ease of use... and when we talk about ease of use .. it somehow comes down to the user to take care of security when he's enjoying that ease with windows. ALMOST all the attacks can be avoided even in windows if the user just knows the risk points. I for once have an antivirus installed in my system but its never on auto-protect mode, so basically there is no antivirus or anti-spyware. All I have are 2 firewalls... configured well in detail. Also a few registry keys locked out!.... and now if I execute viruses... they don't do any damage (I've experienced some exceptions as well). I know all my the running processes by name .. any outsider there has to go! Antivirus slow down my computer more than 50%... its just not worth it!.... Symantec definition file has reached almost 11MB.
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 15:11	#26
sbasak BHPian Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CCU-LTN Posts: 608 Thanked: 14 Times	It is true that there are viruses in Linux/Unix as well. But they are never widespread. Even if all the people start using Linux, the nix virus will never be wild. Reasons are: Unlike Windows, nix has many flavors (say Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE, Knoppix etc.) Usually in Windows an EXE works in 98/NT/XP/2K everywhere. But in nix, each "executable" is specific to particular nix version. So, and EXE in nix can't propagate so easily! nix is based on strong security feature from ground level. Usually, most nix logs the user as "non root" user (ie. admin). So, they will always have limited access to system critical files. Yes, it is always possible to log in as root. But that's definitely a deterrant for viruses/trojans. In Windows, file becomes execuable by extension! That's dangerous. In nix, it becomes execuable by permission. Unless you give execute permission to a file, it can't do anything! *nix is heterogenous ( = more varities). Windows is homogenous. Even in real life, a heterogeneous system is much less likely to be wiped out by biological viruses & bacteria! So, if you are still not using Linux, give it a try... you can simply run from CD/DVD & USB drive (without touching your hard disk). Last but not the least, in your life, you drive so many cars. But why use Windows always? Running Windows only is like driving/riding a Ford (or any other make) for lifetime!
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 15:30	#28
tsk1979 Team-BHP Support Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 23,717 Thanked: 22,825 Times View My Garage	Some correct points, some wrong If I have a executable linked with gcc 2.9x it will work on all flavours of linux with 2.9x libs Similarly that linked with 3.x will work with systems with 3.x libs Nothing to do with gentoo, ubuntoo etc., Infact Binaries created on my 32bit redhat install work on my 64bit gentoo too since I have 32bit emul libs. If you download firefox or any other app like that you will see you get .tar.gz for either linux with gcc 3.xor linux with gcc 2.9.x.
	() Thanks

3rd February 2006, 15:34	#29
navin Team-BHP Support Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Mumbai Posts: 25,199 Thanked: 9,306 Times	Linux is slowly becomming homeogenous. most people i know have Red Hat.
	() Thanks