Alternative Power sources - virus from PDF link in here

Author

virus from PDF link in here

no one important

2005-08-20, 1:21 pm

I clicked on a link in here and got a keylogger virus
I cant remember witch thread.
Did anyone else get it?
It was a PDF link it said something about it will take awhile to open
with a dial up connection this was on friday the 20/aug/2005

Dave Hinz

2005-08-21, 9:21 am

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:53:24 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I clicked on a link in here and got a keylogger virus
> I cant remember witch thread.

Well, that tells us a few things:
1. You're behind on your updates and scans
2. You click on random things without being careful.

> Did anyone else get it?

No, my unix boxes would be spectaclarly unimpressed by a virus.

> It was a PDF link it said something about it will take awhile to open
> with a dial up connection this was on friday the 20/aug/2005

It probably claimed to be a PDF, yes. Windows can be fooled by "double
extensions", so if they named it:
energy_report.pdf .exe
or something, your eyes will see it's a .pdf, but your system sees it as
a .exe and just runs it, because it's inherently insecure.

There's a few lessons here, and some of them don't even require
graduating from Windows to, well, anything else, to do.

>

no one important

2005-08-21, 2:21 pm

Dave Hinz wrote:
[color=darkred]
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:53:24 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Well, that tells us a few things:
> 1. You're behind on your updates and scans
> 2. You click on random things without being careful.
>
>
> No, my unix boxes would be spectaclarly unimpressed by a virus.
>
>
> It probably claimed to be a PDF, yes. Windows can be fooled by "double
> extensions", so if they named it:
> energy_report.pdf .exe
> or something, your eyes will see it's a .pdf, but your system sees it as
> a .exe and just runs it, because it's inherently insecure.
>
> There's a few lessons here, and some of them don't even require
> graduating from Windows to, well, anything else, to do.
>

Maybe it wasn't this group I am not sure.
Your assumptions are incorrect though. It was not a random clik and I have all the
latest XP updates.
Updates are made after the fact no one cant predict what the next hack will be.
BTW the way this was installed through my email *inbox * Netscape 7.0
The inbox itself became a .exe. I could have deleted the whole in box in safe mode
and lost all my saved emails but I was able to use a text editor to remove the bad
contents instead
People dont hack linux because you are the only one using it. Same goes for mac
users.

Solar Flare

2005-08-21, 5:21 pm

Let's all go bacj to MSDos because it doesn't get viruses...LOL

"no one important" <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4308B166.840991E7@shaw.ca...
> Dave Hinz wrote:

> People dont hack linux because you are the only one using it. Same goes
for mac
> users.
>
>

funkbastler

2005-08-21, 5:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:46 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>Maybe it wasn't this group I am not sure.
>Your assumptions are incorrect though. It was not a random clik and I have all the
>latest XP updates.
>Updates are made after the fact no one cant predict what the next hack will be.
>BTW the way this was installed through my email *inbox * Netscape 7.0
>The inbox itself became a .exe. I could have deleted the whole in box in safe mode
>and lost all my saved emails but I was able to use a text editor to remove the bad
>contents instead
>People dont hack linux because you are the only one using it. Same goes for mac
>users.
>

Keeping XP up to date will NOT protect you from viral infections. You
need some good antivirus software, and you need to keep it up to date.

Go to http://www.grisoft.com and get the free version of AVG. Update
it daily. It's better than McAfee, it's better than Norton (IMHO), and
no, I'm not connected with them.

And, Dave is not the only one using Unix/Linux. I use it too, as do lots
of other folks. You don't have be a hacker to use it, and if you tried it,
I think you'd like it.

--
-fb-

funkbastler

2005-08-21, 5:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:38 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Let's all go bacj to MSDos because it doesn't get viruses...LOL
>

well,, uh,,, you see, there WERE some MSDOS viruses:

http://simplythebest.net/info/virus_info/DOS_virus.html

--
-fb-

no one important

2005-08-21, 6:21 pm

Solar Flare wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Let's all go bacj to MSDos because it doesn't get viruses...LOL
>
> "no one important" <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:4308B166.840991E7@shaw.ca...
>
> for mac

Lets all switch to cleanex or linux whatever it is ...........so they can
attack that.
I just cant stand mac/linux users bragging about how safe there POS OS is
when no one even gives a rats XXX enough to even bother trying to hack it
because no uses it.

no one important

2005-08-21, 6:21 pm

funkbastler wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:46 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> Keeping XP up to date will NOT protect you from viral infections. You
> need some good antivirus software, and you need to keep it up to date.
>
> Go to http://www.grisoft.com and get the free version of AVG. Update
> it daily. It's better than McAfee, it's better than Norton (IMHO), and
> no, I'm not connected with them.
>
> And, Dave is not the only one using Unix/Linux. I use it too, as do lots
> of other folks. You don't have be a hacker to use it, and if you tried it,
> I think you'd like it.
>
> --
> -fb-

Thanks for the hot tip? Are you talking to me? Or do you mean that there are still
people out there NOT using a antivirus prog? I use Fsecure BTW.
I didnt say that having XP udates keeps anyone/me protected alone in itself..
Ok then........... so what......... there are two of you using linux big deal tried it
and it didnt meet my needs at all.
My anti virus did detect it but after the fact/file was damaged.......... piss me off.

I just love this bullcrap that linux and mac is better.............thats as about as
stupid as the BETA versus VHS wars.
Sony got told didnt they lol..........they tried to screw the masses that better cost
more as if......

funkbastler

2005-08-21, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:30:42 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
wrote:
>
>Lets all switch to cleanex or linux whatever it is ...........so they can
>attack that.
>I just cant stand mac/linux users bragging about how safe there POS OS is
>when no one even gives a rats XXX enough to even bother trying to hack it
>because no uses it.
>
>

Dude!!! Drop the attitude! Unix-Linux-OS X *is* (are) inherently more
secure than Windows. More stable too! Live with it!

--
-fb-

funkbastler

2005-08-21, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>Thanks for the hot tip? Are you talking to me? Or do you mean that there are still
>people out there NOT using a antivirus prog? I use Fsecure BTW.
>I didnt say that having XP udates keeps anyone/me protected alone in itself..
>Ok then........... so what......... there are two of you using linux big deal tried it
>and it didnt meet my needs at all.
>My anti virus did detect it but after the fact/file was damaged.......... piss me off.
>
>I just love this bullcrap that linux and mac is better.............thats as about as
>stupid as the BETA versus VHS wars.
>Sony got told didnt they lol..........they tried to screw the masses that better cost
>more as if......
>

*plonk*

no one important

2005-08-21, 7:21 pm

funkbastler wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:30:42 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Dude!!! Drop the attitude! Unix-Linux-OS X *is* (are) inherently more
> secure than Windows. More stable too! Live with it!
>
> --
> -fb-

Sorry my VHS eat a tape today.

no one important

2005-08-21, 7:21 pm

no one important

2005-08-21, 7:21 pm

funkbastler wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> *plonk*

*see ya *

Winston

2005-08-21, 8:21 pm

funkbastler wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:46 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
(...)
[color=darkred]
> And, Dave is not the only one using Unix/Linux. I use it too, as do lots
> of other folks. You don't have be a hacker to use it, and if you tried it,
> I think you'd like it.

Roger that, over.

--Winston

Solar Flare

2005-08-21, 11:21 pm

Yup and there are Linux viruses too.

Geeeeeez. Now there are cell phone OS viruses too.

"funkbastler" <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:a4mhg1dvl8cfablplesht6reghfaq5aopk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:38 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> well,, uh,,, you see, there WERE some MSDOS viruses:
>
> http://simplythebest.net/info/virus_info/DOS_virus.html
>
> --
> -fb-
>

Solar Flare

2005-08-21, 11:21 pm

MSDos was stable too.

When you get all the toys in Linux it will be less stable too. When..

"funkbastler" <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:veqhg1lhvmjrb7387msgvqped40tt4qtn2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:30:42 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Dude!!! Drop the attitude! Unix-Linux-OS X *is* (are) inherently more
> secure than Windows. More stable too! Live with it!
>
> --
> -fb-
>

Solar Flare

2005-08-21, 11:21 pm

LOLOLO Ya' big baby!

"funkbastler" <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:csqhg156m05gdiajkp0obp74lfo2nnue0t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:

>
> *plonk*

Solar Flare

2005-08-21, 11:21 pm

I use OS2. I never get any viruses and never need a virus checker either.

LOL

"Winston" <Winston@BigBrother.net> wrote in message
news:u9GdnRnzx7xal5TeRVn-vw@speakeasy.net...
> funkbastler wrote:
<bogususername@shaw.ca>[color=darkred]
> (...)
>
lots[color=darkred]
it,[color=darkred]
>
>
> Roger that, over.
>
> --Winston

wmbjk

2005-08-22, 11:21 am

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:01:38 -0500, funkbastler
<funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
>wrote:

>
>*plonk*

"no one important" appears to be yet another of Gymmy Bob's sock
puppets. If you want to plonk them all you're going to need the whole
list, which is too long to type. "Solar Flare" is the one he's using
here most often now.

Wayne

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 2:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:52:46 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Maybe it wasn't this group I am not sure.
> Your assumptions are incorrect though. It was not a random clik

Um, OK, but if you don't even remember where you saw it, I'd say you
weren't all that aware of what you were doing.

> and I have all the
> latest XP updates.

And what about your antivirus and antispyware updates? I suspect that
at least the first are out of date. I'm not aware of any new keyloggers
in the last week, and I do get all the notifications. Therefore I would
suspect that it wasn't a day-zero exploit which bit you, therefore by
definition you're behind in your updates.

> Updates are made after the fact no one cant predict what the next hack will be.

Right. But see the above about keyloggers and day-zero exploits.

> BTW the way this was installed through my email *inbox * Netscape 7.0
> The inbox itself became a .exe. I could have deleted the whole in box in safe mode
> and lost all my saved emails but I was able to use a text editor to remove the bad
> contents instead

If you say so.

> People dont hack linux because you are the only one using it. Same goes for mac
> users.

Well, no. You're confusing two issues - it takes motivation _and_
opportunity to make a virus work. Unix systems (Linux and BSD included
- which covers Mac) have been driving the financial world for decades -
the motivation surely would be there. What is lacking is the
opportunity. Unix/Linux/BSD/Mac all use the same security model, where
the user isn't allowed to mess up the system's files. Windows lets the
user break the system, which is why viruses work. It's not about
popularity, it's about vulnerability.

I'd be happy to discuss the matter in as much depth as you'd like.

Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 2:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:38 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's all go bacj to MSDos because it doesn't get viruses...LOL

Who said anything about MSDos? The only modern computing platform that
is susceptable to viruses is Windows. It's inherently insecure. This
is hardly news or controversial, it's fact.

But...you're not real big on facts there, are you, sparky.

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 2:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:50:15 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yup and there are Linux viruses too.

Cite please? (translation: I think you're full of shit and want to see
a credible source to back up your claim).

> Geeeeeez. Now there are cell phone OS viruses too.

Lots of cellphones running Windows. You do the math.

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 2:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:30:42 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Lets all switch to cleanex or linux whatever it is ...........so they can
> attack that.
> I just cant stand mac/linux users bragging about how safe there POS OS is
> when no one even gives a rats XXX enough to even bother trying to hack it
> because no uses it.

Riiiight, nobody uses Unix. That's it, yup, it's all just a big
illusion. Sheesh. Enjoy your virus-infested OS; the two of you were
made for each other. In the meantime, at least consider keeping your
antivirus up to date, instead of coming here and whining about something
that you brought on yourself by a series of bad decisions.

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 2:21 pm

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
> funkbastler wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Thanks for the hot tip? Are you talking to me? Or do you mean that there are still
> people out there NOT using a antivirus prog? I use Fsecure BTW.

Then you didn't get the virus you claim you got, or you were behind on
your updates. Unless Fsecure knows about a day-zero exploit last week
which included a keylogger, which none of the others know about?

> I didnt say that having XP udates keeps anyone/me protected alone in itself..
> Ok then........... so what......... there are two of you using linux big deal tried it
> and it didnt meet my needs at all.

Good. Stay with Windows. It's the AOL of operating systems.

> My anti virus did detect it but after the fact/file was damaged.......... piss me off.

Sounds like you need a better...ah, nevermind.

> I just love this bullcrap that linux and mac is better.............thats as about as
> stupid as the BETA versus VHS wars.

Well, I'll agree that Unix isn't a better platform for viruses,
that much is true.

> Sony got told didnt they lol..........they tried to screw the masses that better cost
> more as if......

Sony lost the Beta/VHS battle because they wouldn't license their format
to people producing porn. Porn is a powerful force in the technology
industry. Somehow, I bet you'll even disagree with _that_ statement.

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 3:21 pm

X-Trace: individual.net 4UmJXt8VkkMIuGfxOLlxggxKYJxz/nH87AOTXG35gqzez8Q39f
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:114703

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:52:49 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LOLOLO Ya' big baby!

You seem to think that "plonk" means "I can't handle it", when in
reality it means "My what an incredible waste of oxygen you are". Like
this:
<plonk>

Buh-bye.

wmbjk

2005-08-22, 4:21 pm

On 22 Aug 2005 16:24:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

>I'd be happy to discuss the matter in as much depth as you'd like.
>
>Dave Hinz

Please don't help Gymmy Bob! (aka "solar flare" and "no one
important") In his case getting a virus is a *good* thing. He posts
under so many names that he needs (at least) two ISPs (golden.net and
shaw.ca). He spends half his time complaining about bottom posters,
yet frequently bottom posts in a futile attempt to hide his identity.
I doubt that he ever leaves his chair, and he's probably juggling a
bunch of hardware and software and can't keep track of what's updated
and what isn't. So it's not much of a surprise when he gets confused,
as in this thread http://tinyurl.com/a5ahw where, as John Bengi and
three other user names, posted the same comment six times from both of
the ISPs he's using in the current thread. Except now he's using yet
two more IDs. He's fairly easy to spot - he adopts a new name, posts a
lot of usually (not so) wisecracks, and uses the word "troll" a lot.
If we out him here often enough when he's using the two aforementioned
Canadian ISPs, then perhaps he'll get tired of changing names and
posting via Google, and will go somewhere he belongs... like under a
bridge.

Wayne

Dave Hinz

2005-08-22, 4:21 pm

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:28:51 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2005 16:24:48 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> Please don't help Gymmy Bob! (aka "solar flare" and "no one
> important")

Ah. Well, it's already killfiled, so no worries there. Thanks though;
it's so hard to know (or care) if this is the same idiot or a new one.

2005-08-22, 4:21 pm

In article <veqhg1lhvmjrb7387msgvqped40tt4qtn2@4ax.com>,
funkbastler <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote:

> Dude!!! Drop the attitude! Unix-Linux-OS X *is* (are) inherently more
> secure than Windows. More stable too! Live with it!
>
> --
> -fb-

True enough, when was the last time you saw a Telephone Exchange Switch
go down due to a virus? That application is what Unix was written for
in the first place, by AT&T/Bell Labs before the breakup. Unix runs
over 90% of the Telco Switches Worldwide. If they were MIcroSquash OS's
you wouldn't make a phonecall....ever......

Me

daestrom

2005-08-22, 7:21 pm

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3muf43F18p7lmU2@individual.net...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:50:15 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Cite please? (translation: I think you're full of shit and want to see
> a credible source to back up your claim).
>

Try www.cert.org search for 'linux virus'. Not nearly as many as MS
product line, but still there are some.

daestrom

Solar Flare

2005-08-22, 9:21 pm

***I*** said something about MsDos!

If you want to compare a primitive OS against an advanced one for virus
susceptability the whole point is moot.

Use MsDos susceptibility against Linux susceptibilty.

Compare apples with apples.

Maybe you can read more accurately. You may discover Linux has uses and it
ain't for modern computer productivity.

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3muf1vF18p7lmU1@individual.net...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:38 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Who said anything about MSDos? The only modern computing platform that
> is susceptable to viruses is Windows. It's inherently insecure. This
> is hardly news or controversial, it's fact.
>
> But...you're not real big on facts there, are you, sparky.
>

Solar Flare

2005-08-22, 9:21 pm

LOLOL Ya' big baby.

Plonk again? How many opinions can you not support?

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3muflgF18p7lmU5@individual.net...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:52:49 -0400, Solar Flare <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> You seem to think that "plonk" means "I can't handle it", when in
> reality it means "My what an incredible waste of oxygen you are". Like
> this:
> <plonk>
>
> Buh-bye.
>

Solar Flare

2005-08-22, 9:21 pm

Everybody has to be just like you or they get "plonked".

It's just your way I guess. It's real lonely at the top, isn't it?

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3mufj5F18p7lmU4@individual.net...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
wrote:
>
are still[color=darkred]
>
> Then you didn't get the virus you claim you got, or you were behind on
> your updates. Unless Fsecure knows about a day-zero exploit last week
> which included a keylogger, which none of the others know about?
>
itself..[color=darkred]
deal tried it[color=darkred]
>
> Good. Stay with Windows. It's the AOL of operating systems.
>
damaged.......... piss me off.[color=darkred]
>
> Sounds like you need a better...ah, nevermind.
>
as about as[color=darkred]
>
> Well, I'll agree that Unix isn't a better platform for viruses,
> that much is true.
>
that better cost[color=darkred]
>
> Sony lost the Beta/VHS battle because they wouldn't license their format
> to people producing porn. Porn is a powerful force in the technology
> industry. Somehow, I bet you'll even disagree with _that_ statement.
>
>

funkbastler

2005-08-22, 9:21 pm

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:52:29 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Maybe you can read more accurately. You may discover Linux has uses and it
>ain't for modern computer productivity.
>

Now THAT is good for a big laugh.

--
-fb-

no one important

2005-08-23, 2:21 am

Solar Flare wrote:
[color=darkred]
> LOLOL Ya' big baby.
>
> Plonk again? How many opinions can you not support?
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3muflgF18p7lmU5@individual.net...
> wrote:

Remeber when the lonely Beta users bragged that Beta was better.............
same shit differant pile............no tapes ...no eat tape lol
Linux no application no virus...........

no one important

2005-08-23, 2:21 am

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:46:17 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Then you didn't get the virus you claim you got, or you were behind on
> your updates. Unless Fsecure knows about a day-zero exploit last week
> which included a keylogger, which none of the others know about?
>
>
> Good. Stay with Windows. It's the AOL of operating systems.
>
>
> Sounds like you need a better...ah, nevermind.
>
>
> Well, I'll agree that Unix isn't a better platform for viruses,
> that much is true.
>
>
> Sony lost the Beta/VHS battle because they wouldn't license their format
> to people producing porn. Porn is a powerful force in the technology
> industry. Somehow, I bet you'll even disagree with _that_ statement.

Do you mean that if I get linux i get more porn?

Dave Hinz

2005-08-23, 12:21 pm

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:13:47 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3muf43F18p7lmU2@individual.net...
[color=darkred]
> Try www.cert.org search for 'linux virus'. Not nearly as many as MS
> product line, but still there are some.

Well, I did that search. Did you notice that their search does the
expansions strangely? If you go to advanced search and specify:
should contain - inthe body - the phrase - linux virus
you get:
Results for: "linux virus"

No results were found for your search.

The 80-some hits had the word linux, and had the word virus, but not
together. Melissa, Michelangelo, AnnaKournikova, W32/Sircam and so on
come up in your original search but aren't Linux viruses.

daestrom

2005-08-23, 7:21 pm

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3n0semF18soo4U1@individual.net...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:13:47 GMT, daestrom
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, I did that search. Did you notice that their search does the
> expansions strangely? If you go to advanced search and specify:
> should contain - inthe body - the phrase - linux virus
> you get:
> Results for: "linux virus"
>
> No results were found for your search.
>
> The 80-some hits had the word linux, and had the word virus, but not
> together. Melissa, Michelangelo, AnnaKournikova, W32/Sircam and so on
> come up in your original search but aren't Linux viruses.
>

Funny, I use the words 'linux' and 'virus' in the 'body must contain'
section for the just the last two years and get about 45 hits.

Perhaps you're quibling about the definition of 'virus'. Here is one hit
that discusses several trojan horses that can be remotely inserted into
linux systems by the rpc.statd service (common on many unix systems
including linux). Once installed, the trojan's let a remote user into all
sorts of nasty places.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-17.html

An anti-virus product for Linux (now, why would Linux need such a product if
there are no virii?) that needs a patch because it doesn't detect the
Sober.D virus. Includes a warning that linux systems may become infected by
Sober.D even though their antivirus definitions are up to date.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/415734

A 'vulnerability' in /bin/login that allows a remote user to gain root
access to vulnerable versions of linux
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1994-09.html

A worm that propagates itself through Apache on linux systems.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-27.html

The last paragraph of the 'introduction' of Home Computer Security, stresses
that regardless of operating system, the issues are the same.
http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/

The 'ramen' toolkit contains a mechanism to self-propagate and includes
methods for a virus write to exploit vulnerabilities in linux's rpc.statd.
http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2001-01.html

An announcement from SuSE regarding vulnerabilities in BIND8 on their Linux
distributions. Okay, it's not a virus, but it's a hole that leaves the
system pretty open to attack by a remote user.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/JARL-5FTQ6G

The first known linux virus was found in 1996
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/staog.shtml

Here's another virus information search page. Just typing in 'linux' finds a
few linux specific hits.
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/

These indicate to the informed user that Linux systems *do* suffer from
vulnerabilities that would allow malicious code to intrude and interfere
with operation, or allow remote use of a linux system in DOS attacks.

The modularity of linux allows the community to address specific program
problems on an individual program basis (such as the rpc.statd, apache, or
/bin/login problems). But anyone so naive as to think they don't need to
worry about virii because they are using the 'xxx' OS, will someday find out
how wrong they are.

To quote from an op-ed piece, "The single biggest security issue facing
Linux users at the moment is the misconception perpetuated by highly vocal
advocates that Linux is somehow impenetrable to security-based attacks, and
in particular, viruses and other malware."
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/virus_news/2003/10_06.xml

daestrom

Solar Flare

2005-08-23, 9:21 pm

Nicely done!

I think many are sick of the conceited attacks from the Linux backwoods
crowd. Your post may go down in history as the beginning of the silent era
for Linux users bragging. Real men would just run Unix. LOL

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kUMOe.29816$Hx4.7038@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3n0semF18soo4U1@individual.net...
see[color=darkred]
>
> Funny, I use the words 'linux' and 'virus' in the 'body must contain'
> section for the just the last two years and get about 45 hits.
>
> Perhaps you're quibling about the definition of 'virus'. Here is one hit
> that discusses several trojan horses that can be remotely inserted into
> linux systems by the rpc.statd service (common on many unix systems
> including linux). Once installed, the trojan's let a remote user into all
> sorts of nasty places.
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-17.html
>
> An anti-virus product for Linux (now, why would Linux need such a product
if
> there are no virii?) that needs a patch because it doesn't detect the
> Sober.D virus. Includes a warning that linux systems may become infected
by
> Sober.D even though their antivirus definitions are up to date.
> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/415734
>
> A 'vulnerability' in /bin/login that allows a remote user to gain root
> access to vulnerable versions of linux
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1994-09.html
>
> A worm that propagates itself through Apache on linux systems.
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-27.html
>
> The last paragraph of the 'introduction' of Home Computer Security,
stresses
> that regardless of operating system, the issues are the same.
> http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/
>
> The 'ramen' toolkit contains a mechanism to self-propagate and includes
> methods for a virus write to exploit vulnerabilities in linux's rpc.statd.
> http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2001-01.html
>
> An announcement from SuSE regarding vulnerabilities in BIND8 on their
Linux
> distributions. Okay, it's not a virus, but it's a hole that leaves the
> system pretty open to attack by a remote user.
> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/JARL-5FTQ6G
>
> The first known linux virus was found in 1996
> http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/staog.shtml
>
> Here's another virus information search page. Just typing in 'linux' finds
a
> few linux specific hits.
> http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/
>
> These indicate to the informed user that Linux systems *do* suffer from
> vulnerabilities that would allow malicious code to intrude and interfere
> with operation, or allow remote use of a linux system in DOS attacks.
>
> The modularity of linux allows the community to address specific program
> problems on an individual program basis (such as the rpc.statd, apache, or
> /bin/login problems). But anyone so naive as to think they don't need to
> worry about virii because they are using the 'xxx' OS, will someday find
out
> how wrong they are.
>
> To quote from an op-ed piece, "The single biggest security issue facing
> Linux users at the moment is the misconception perpetuated by highly vocal
> advocates that Linux is somehow impenetrable to security-based attacks,
and
> in particular, viruses and other malware."
> http://www.virusbtn.com/news/virus_news/2003/10_06.xml
>
> daestrom
>
>

Dave Hinz

2005-08-23, 11:21 pm

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:52:16 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3n0semF18soo4U1@individual.net...

>
> Funny, I use the words 'linux' and 'virus' in the 'body must contain'
> section for the just the last two years and get about 45 hits.

OK, so you got 45, I got 80-some. Point is, they're not Linux viruses.

> Perhaps you're quibling about the definition of 'virus'. Here is one hit
> that discusses several trojan horses

Yes, trojans are _not_ viruses. A virus spreads itself; a trojan needs
human intervention to install. A "virus" that comes with an
installation procedure that includes "OK, now change ownership to root,
make the file executable, become root and run it" just isn't going to
have legs.

> that can be remotely inserted into
> linux systems by the rpc.statd service (common on many unix systems
> including linux). Once installed, the trojan's let a remote user into all
> sorts of nasty places.

Yes, trojans exist and are fixed from time to time, usually without the
exploit getting into "the wild". Contrast this to Windows
virus-of-the-week in frequency, impact, and self-spreading to see the
dramatic difference. It's hardly "quibbling", the terminology has
distinct definitions.

> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-17.html

Note the year on that one... it's notable that the example you chose is
5 years old...

> An anti-virus product for Linux (now, why would Linux need such a product if
> there are no virii?) that needs a patch because it doesn't detect the
> Sober.D virus.

Yes, there are antivirus scanners for Mac, and for Linux, and for
Solaris, and so on, which do scan for Windows viruses. We use a Unix
host to do just that at work, because it mounts the same filesystems,
and filters the email, before the Windows clients get to it. Those are
windows viruses it's scanning for.

> Includes a warning that linux systems may become infected by
> Sober.D even though their antivirus definitions are up to date.

Can you show me a direct link to that please? sober.d doesn't show up
in the document you mention.

> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/415734

You aren't reading carefully, sorry. F-secure is one of the products
such as I mentioned above - runs on Unix to filter out Windows viruses.
That's what they mean by "servers (and) gateways" in the Description.
Nowhere in that document does it say that Linux systems can become
infected by sober.d, it says "F-secure Anti-Virus for Linux contains a
flaw that may prevent it from properly detecting the Sober.D virus.",
and that they "may not be filtering out the Sober.D virus". Says
nothing about an infection. I'm going to assume this is just an error
on your part, rather than an intentional distortion, because (a) I know
you, kind of, and (b) you're not the kind to give links and lie about
what they say.

> A 'vulnerability' in /bin/login that allows a remote user to gain root
> access to vulnerable versions of linux
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1994-09.html

Yes, yes, and this is also not a virus by any definition.

> A worm that propagates itself through Apache on linux systems.
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-27.html

worm. Not virus, worm.

> The last paragraph of the 'introduction' of Home Computer Security, stresses
> that regardless of operating system, the issues are the same.
> http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/

Issues, as in "know what you're running and who gave it to you", yes.
Issues as in "sober.d can infect your computer regardless of platform",
no.

> The 'ramen' toolkit contains a mechanism to self-propagate and includes
> methods for a virus write to exploit vulnerabilities in linux's rpc.statd.
> http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2001-01.html

Also not a virus.

> An announcement from SuSE regarding vulnerabilities in BIND8 on their Linux
> distributions. Okay, it's not a virus, but it's a hole that leaves the
> system pretty open to attack by a remote user.
> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/JARL-5FTQ6G

You're right, that's not a virus.

> The first known linux virus was found in 1996
> http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/staog.shtml

"Staog is not known to be in the wild at the time of this writing
(February 1997)". Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than an
8-year-old lab thought experiment.

> Here's another virus information search page. Just typing in 'linux' finds a
> few linux specific hits.
> http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/
>
> These indicate to the informed user that Linux systems *do* suffer from
> vulnerabilities that would allow malicious code to intrude and interfere
> with operation, or allow remote use of a linux system in DOS attacks.

All of which are not _viruses_ by anyone's definition (but maybe yours).

> The modularity of linux allows the community to address specific program
> problems on an individual program basis (such as the rpc.statd, apache, or
> /bin/login problems). But anyone so naive as to think they don't need to
> worry about virii because they are using the 'xxx' OS, will someday find out
> how wrong they are.

Get back to me when there are real viruses for OSX and Linux, in the
wild, and then we'll discuss it. In the meantime, it's more of the same
as you've shown me. It's fine that you enjoy Windows, and all that, but
distorting the definition of "virus" to make it look like (often
hypothetical) vulnerabilities are the same thing is disingenuous at
best.

> To quote from an op-ed piece, "The single biggest security issue facing
> Linux users at the moment is the misconception perpetuated by highly vocal
> advocates that Linux is somehow impenetrable to security-based attacks,

Red-herring. You're better than that.

> and
> in particular, viruses and other malware."

Still no spyware, still no viruses. No matter how you try to redefine
it.

daestrom

2005-08-24, 6:21 pm

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3n20pvF1872gaU1@individual.net...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:52:16 GMT, daestrom
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
> Note the year on that one... it's notable that the example you chose is
> 5 years old...
>
>
> Yes, yes, and this is also not a virus by any definition.
>

So are many of the 'vulnerabilities' of Microsoft products. They are not
virii either, they are ways that unscrupulous programmer's can gain access
to your system, without your knowledge, and perform tasks like remote DOS
attacks. If MS is going to be lambasted for having such 'vulnerabilities',
even before they are exploited, then don't you think other OS's should be
held to the same standard.

Surely a 'vulnerability' that allows others to access a Linux system as
'root' without the user knowing is a security issue that is as important (or
more so) than any 'virus'.

>
> worm. Not virus, worm.
>

Right..... It replicates itself, it infects other computers, it can be
malicious. But since the *user* didn't activate it, it isn't a 'virus' so
Linux is safe. Now you're splitting hairs down lengthwise to defend the
"Linux doesn't have virii, so Linux is safer" mantra.

>
> You're right, that's not a virus.
>

No, it's just a security hole that allows 'hackers' to take over your
machine. Much like most of the 'vulnerabilities' found in Microsoft
products.

>
> "Staog is not known to be in the wild at the time of this writing
> (February 1997)". Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than an
> 8-year-old lab thought experiment.
>
>
> Get back to me when there are real viruses for OSX and Linux, in the
> wild, and then we'll discuss it. In the meantime, it's more of the same
> as you've shown me. It's fine that you enjoy Windows, and all that, but
> distorting the definition of "virus" to make it look like (often
> hypothetical) vulnerabilities are the same thing is disingenuous at
> best.

Search for 'bliss'. By just about *every* interpretation, it qualified as a
'virus'. It was found in the 'wild', it attaches to as many executables as
it can. It trys to infect any other host accessible via rsh. It even
patches kernal source code so it will survive after a complete kernal
rebuild.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/linu...y/msg00024.html

Or just continue believing that computer security is only an issue with
Windows because there are no virii on Linux systems. Maybe I'll go get the
ramen toolkit and write one, just to prove you wrong ;-)

daestrom

Dave Hinz

2005-08-24, 7:21 pm

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:11:49 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3n20pvF1872gaU1@individual.net...
><snip>
>
> So are many of the 'vulnerabilities' of Microsoft products. They are not
> virii either,

Sorry, but that tactic is also weak. Responding to "None of these
things on Linux/Unix/BSD/Mac are viruses" with "Not all Windows
vulnerabilities are viruses" doesn't change anything.

> they are ways that unscrupulous programmer's can gain access
> to your system, without your knowledge, and perform tasks like remote DOS
> attacks. If MS is going to be lambasted for having such 'vulnerabilities',
> even before they are exploited, then don't you think other OS's should be
> held to the same standard.

Yes, there are vulnernerabilities in all OS's. No, not all
vulnerabilities are viruses. Clearer now?

> Surely a 'vulnerability' that allows others to access a Linux system as
> 'root' without the user knowing is a security issue that is as important (or
> more so) than any 'virus'.

Is it? If I have a vulnerability in, say, sendmail, but I haven't
specifically turned it on and enabled the feature which is by default
off, yes there's a vulnerability to patch on my system, and no, I don't
have an exposure. Contrast this to Windows and it's habit of leaving
ports wide open by default, having users who wouldn't know what ports
they have open if their lives depended on it, and having processes
_listening_ to those open ports.

>
[color=darkred]
> Right..... It replicates itself, it infects other computers, it can be
> malicious. But since the *user* didn't activate it, it isn't a 'virus' so
> Linux is safe.

It's not a virus. I didn't say linux is invicible. It's fine if you
don't want to use it, but don't be putting words in other peoples'
mouths to then shoot down the arguments you pretend they made.
red-herring is a pretty pathetic rhetorical tactic.

> Now you're splitting hairs down lengthwise to defend the
> "Linux doesn't have virii, so Linux is safer" mantra.

Linux doesn't have viruses, _and_ linux is safer. Now you ascribe a
"mantra" to me? You use quotation marks. Perhaps you can show me
(google) where I wrote what you're quoting please.

Or you could just stop distorting my points. That'd be fine too.

Absence of response noted.
[color=darkred]
>
> Search for 'bliss'. By just about *every* interpretation, it qualified as a
> 'virus'. It was found in the 'wild', it attaches to as many executables as
> it can.

Bliss requires someone with root access to install it, make it
executable, and run it initially. It's a "virus" with an installation
procedure.

> It trys to infect any other host accessible via rsh.

If you have root access open by rsh, you need to have your brain
examined. I'm not even sure if it's possible. No root access, no
infection of system files.

> It even
> patches kernal source code so it will survive after a complete kernal
> rebuild.

See above regarding root access, installation procedures, and so on.

> http://www.redhat.com/archives/linu...y/msg00024.html
>
> Or just continue believing that computer security is only an issue with
> Windows because there are no virii on Linux systems. Maybe I'll go get the
> ramen toolkit and write one, just to prove you wrong ;-)

Look. I deal with computer security as part of my job. I am very aware
that vulnerabilities exist in all OS's. For you to distort my points to
claim that I've claimed otherwise is pretty blatant lying on your part.
There are security holes in all OS's. But only Windows has viruses and
spyware by the classical definitions.

It's fine if you enjoy windows. Really. But if you're going to
badmouth *nix, you should at least have your facts straight before you
do it. Criticize it for real reasons, not examples from nearly a decade
ago from something that was a theoretical risk at worst.

Windsun

2005-08-25, 8:21 pm

And you need to get a copy of Hooked on Phonics so that you know the
difference between Witch and Which.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3mr8t3F180fo3U3@individual.net...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:53:24 GMT, no one important <bogususername@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Well, that tells us a few things:
> 1. You're behind on your updates and scans
> 2. You click on random things without being careful.

Windsun

2005-08-25, 8:21 pm

From Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 63,400 for "linux virus". (0.23 seconds)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> Well, I did that search. Did you notice that their search does the
> expansions strangely? If you go to advanced search and specify:
> should contain - inthe body - the phrase - linux virus
> you get:
> Results for: "linux virus"
>
> No results were found for your search.
>

funkbastler

2005-08-26, 12:21 am

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:03:33 GMT, "Windsun" <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote:

>From Google:
>
>Results 1 - 10 of about 63,400 for "linux virus". (0.23 seconds)
>

Uhhhh......

From Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 for wind sun moron. (0.27 seconds)

So what's your point?

--
-fb-

Dave Hinz

2005-08-26, 11:21 am

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:03:33 GMT, Windsun <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote:
> From Google:
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 63,400 for "linux virus". (0.23 seconds)

Yes, thank you. Now show me which of those are relevant, other than
hits like "there is no such thing as a linux virus". The search that I
described is at a computer security firm's data repository, you know,
people who know about these things.

As you, clearly, do not.

LinkBot