Re: Why linux is less prone to viruses
- From: Robert Hull <Robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 02:45:33 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc, on Fri 19 May 2006 23:38, ray
On Fri, 19 May 2006 16:04:55 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 08:53:47 -0600, ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 19 May 2006 07:01:59 -0700, mknarang.nsit@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
There are several reasons. For one, 'everybody' is writing MS virusesBullshit. There are enough linux systems on the network for virusess
- hardly anyone bothers with Linux viruses - security by obscurity.
to propagate if viruses were possible.
There isn't a single linux virus in the wild.
Exactly the point. Because no one bothers.
No! Not because no-one bothers, but because they don't work.
Proofs of concept exist,
The proof of concept offerings all fail the definition of a virus - that
it is able to install self-executing and self-replicating copies of
Archival or publication of this article on any part of thisishull.net
is without consent and is in direct breach of the Data Protection Act
- Prev by Date: Re: Why open source will prevail
- Next by Date: Re: shell: full path to currently executed script
- Previous by thread: Re: Why linux is less prone to viruses
- Next by thread: Re: Why linux is less prone to viruses