Why do computers even need virus protection?
| What is perhaps true is that the typical Windows user uses the OS in a more vulnerable manner than the typical Linux user. |
That the braindead security model of Windows is more vulnerable there is no question; please keep the user behavior out. I used Windows with exactly as much security in mind as I use Linux now. On Windows I got a virus. On Linux, I got none.
| That the braindead security model of Windows is more vulnerable there is no question; please keep the user behavior out. I used Windows with exactly as much security in mind as I use Linux now. On Windows I got a virus. On Linux, I got none. |
I know that Windows has three kinds of accounts for users: Administrator, Limited and Guest. The last is the direct equivalent of the standard user in Linux, in my opinion. So I wouldn't say the security model is braindead... just more lax. What is stupid, is that (on Windows XP) you are prompted to create up to four administrator users, instead of limited users, for yourself and others. That's where they messed up, but we should remember the year was 2001 and people got used to being power users in Win9x.
So why did you not get a virus on Linux, but you got one on Windows? Two reasons:
1) Linux distros have software repositories. For Windows you just download your software from third parties.
2) Usage share. Let's get real. There are more viruses out there for Windows because there are more Windows desktops.
I haven't seen any virus for Linux which doesn't require in-depth knowledge of Linux and/or root privilegies to infect your own machine.
I haven't seen any virus for Windows which doesn't require in-depth knowledge of windows and/or and execution under elevated privileges to infect a Windows machine on which acls and privilege policies have been set up with a modicum of intelligence.
| JLBorges wrote: |
|---|
| Windows machine on which acls and privilege policies have been set up with a modicum of intelligence. |
We nailed it! Problem that default Windows policies is not intelligent! Seriously, why the hell I can get infected by inserting a flash drive under limited account on freshly installed system?
Last edited on
I also meant to imply that the majority of Windows users haven't a clue what privilege policies are.
| I haven't seen any virus for Windows which doesn't require in-depth knowledge of windows and/or and execution under elevated privileges to infect a Windows machine on which acls and privilege policies have been set up with a modicum of intelligence. |
So, you are subtly implying that I am of lower intelligence than you because my ex-Windows system got infected. On the other hand, I previously implied that you are of lower intelligence for using Windows instead of Linux, so I guess I called for it.
To reiterate. Use linux. Best cure for Windows = format windows HD and install Linux. You will not regret it.
Last edited on
> We nailed it! Problem that default Windows policies is not intelligent!
Depends on what is meant by 'not intelligent'.
The default Windows policies are not intelligent from a technical security perspective.
They are extremely intelligent from a political perspective; the vast majority of Windows users would be completely lost if the default policies were designed to secure the system as much as possible.
I've no complaints on that count. Microsoft does not insist that I must use those same defaults on my Windows machine.
EDIT:
> So, you are subtly implying that I am of lower intelligence than you
> because my ex-Windows system got infected.
No, I'm not implying that. I'm, somewhat unsubtly, implying that you did not use the Windows machine carefully or intelligently enough.
> I previously implied that you are of lower intelligence for using Windows instead of Linux,
For the record, I don't use either Windows or Linux on most of my machines - they run on FreeBSD. (As an aside, if I were paranoid about security, it would have been OpenBSD instead).
But I don't buy the argument that Linux users are in general more intelligent than Windows users. Among the people I know whose intelligence I respect, there are very many more Windows users than Linux users.
Depends on what is meant by 'not intelligent'.
The default Windows policies are not intelligent from a technical security perspective.
They are extremely intelligent from a political perspective; the vast majority of Windows users would be completely lost if the default policies were designed to secure the system as much as possible.
I've no complaints on that count. Microsoft does not insist that I must use those same defaults on my Windows machine.
EDIT:
> So, you are subtly implying that I am of lower intelligence than you
> because my ex-Windows system got infected.
No, I'm not implying that. I'm, somewhat unsubtly, implying that you did not use the Windows machine carefully or intelligently enough.
> I previously implied that you are of lower intelligence for using Windows instead of Linux,
For the record, I don't use either Windows or Linux on most of my machines - they run on FreeBSD. (As an aside, if I were paranoid about security, it would have been OpenBSD instead).
But I don't buy the argument that Linux users are in general more intelligent than Windows users. Among the people I know whose intelligence I respect, there are very many more Windows users than Linux users.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.