[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:53:32 +0000 Keith Abraham wrote: > On 30/10/11 15:34, Martijn Grooten wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Neil Winchurst wrote: > >> I am always careful anyway, but I have always thought that such > >> viruses will not run in Linux. Is that true? I do not have any > >> Windows computers at all so I feel safe, but perhaps I shouldn't. > > In general, you are (a lot) safer using Linux and with a piece of > > Windows malware you can be all but certain it won't run under Linux. > > That's mostly because Linux usage is so much smaller than that of > > Windows; now that Macs have become popular, Mac malware is on the > > rise too. > And because MS OS and OS X are often set up to auto-run downloaded > executables. This unusual in Linux. Also Linux has a strict > separation between root and user space and consequently if a user > ran an executable it would usually only affect the user and not the > system as a whole. > > Keith I have read this kind of statement time and time again. From a "systems administrator" point of view (ie someone who runs a server), this is a non-issue. If the individual's data is trashed it doesn't matter; the users' data should be safely tucked away on a backup, and the "system" can continue to run without any problems. However, as Linux is pushing towards the desktop, this idea of safety "the system" is a non-point. If a users' desktop computer ends up running a Linux virus and all their data gets hosed, it is little consolation to say "well, at least the system is still running". Grant. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq