Hello All,
This is a nice article in TOI, encouraging people to make a switch to GNU/Linux.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/City_Supplements/Bombay_Times/Time...
hello, very interesting article. there are however only two issues in the article. firstly where are those 40 viruses? I never knew that there are viruses in for the linux kernel or the gnu operating system. this is a misguiding fact. unix and thus linux can't have viruses. second. remember friends, windows xp will now sell for $3 for educational institutes and it wont be long before microsoft sells it at this rate for many reasons. windows is fast loosing ground at the desktop side as well and will do all things possible to hit the market again. so cost should not become a major point for promoting free software. although it is one important factor but there are other factores like virus and also the fact that due to the free nature buggs if any are often fixed fast and for the sake of fixing them not for earning market and money. regards, Krishnakant.
Hi,
On 6/30/07, krishnakant Mane researchbase@gmail.com wrote:
firstly where are those 40 viruses? I never knew that there are viruses in for the linux kernel or the gnu operating system. this is a misguiding fact. unix and thus linux can't have viruses.
http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+virus
by the way, can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS? because a file security or for that matter execution rights are fixed as per the user. so if a file is having executable permission on my machine under the user krmane, how will it have same permission for user roni on another machine (or even on the same machine for that matter?) and by the way if I develop a virus (first define that term in context of linux) I will only end up destroying files in my own user space. viruses r supposed to multiply and execute on all the machines they attack. how can virus developers ensure this? I get the feeling that unless all computers are connected to the internet at one given point of time and all are logged in as root and then make entire system read/write including /usr/bin and /bin etc, there can't be a concept of virus for linux and the above mentioned condition is a very distent co insidence. regards, Krishnakant.
On 30-Jun-07, at 7:38 PM, krishnakant Mane wrote:
and by the way if I develop a virus (first define that term in context of linux) I will only end up destroying files in my own user space. viruses r supposed to multiply and execute on all the machines they attack. how can virus developers ensure this?
If I were to make a virus, I would cloak it under the pretext of some other useful software. Think of a binary blob that supposedly installs a Flash Player on your system, or the Netbeans IDE, or some graphics drivers (ATi/nVidia?). You need to run the binary as root, and you will do so. I'll show you a progress dialog and all the works, but do some damage in the background - and the user is none- the-wiser.
-- Anant
On 01-Jul-07, at 1:21 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
and by the way if I develop a virus (first define that term in context of linux) I will only end up destroying files in my own user space. viruses r supposed to multiply and execute on all the machines they attack. how can virus developers ensure this?
If I were to make a virus, I would cloak it under the pretext of some other useful software. Think of a binary blob that supposedly installs a Flash Player on your system, or the Netbeans IDE, or some graphics drivers (ATi/nVidia?). You need to run the binary as root, and you will do so. I'll show you a progress dialog and all the works, but do some damage in the background - and the user is none-the-wiser.
that is trojan, not a virus
On 7/1/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
that is trojan, not a virus
But, the payload could be a virus?
--- Anant Narayanan wrote:
If I were to make a virus, I would cloak it under the pretext of some other useful software. Think of a binary blob that supposedly installs a Flash Player on your system, or the Netbeans IDE, or some graphics drivers (ATi/nVidia?). You need to run the binary as root, and you will do so. I'll show you a progress dialog and all the works, but do some damage in the background - and the user is none- the-wiser.
If the source of acquiring the binary blob is trusted, the damage could be fatal - depending on the damage in the background.
At FOSS.IN/2006 conference, it was stated, the security of packages uploaded to repos or accepted as a package is a major concern for Debian Developers and these packages are monitored carefully.
This leads us to a point, Linux distribution users are / should become really vigilant about how they update, install and operate their system. For most Windows users, it is "Next -> Next -> ... -> Finish". "XYZ is successfully installed". Is it so?
-- FSF of India Associate Fellow - http://www.gnu.org.in http://db.glug-bom.org/wiki/index.php ubunturos @ freenode
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
Sometime on Jun 30, kM dropped bits saying:
can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS?
One requires a stupid (or at least clueless) user. There are millions of them around.
On 7/10/07, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime on Jun 30, kM dropped bits saying:
can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS?
One requires a stupid (or at least clueless) user. There are millions of them around.
-- Facts are the enemy of truth. -- Don Quixote
I love your reply, was about to say the same thing. And the figure is billions with a bee. Which is why Linux users are in a minority.
Ooh...cool smiley!!
On 10-Jul-07, at 6:45 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS?
One requires a stupid (or at least clueless) user. There are millions of them around.
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
On 7/11/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 6:45 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS?
One requires a stupid (or at least clueless) user. There are millions of them around.
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
There is no reason why it cannot. If not root privileges it can access the user's data. And since Linux doesn't allow easy escalation of privileges it can create a keylogger process and wait till the user installs a new software or such.
There is nothing in elf format that says you can't have malicious code in a given executable.
Its also one of the reason why SELinux and AppArmor and chroot are considered on enterprise desktop.
Heh, given that the user is already conned into getting and running the software it doesn't take much to con him/her some more.
regards, C
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 10:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 10-Jul-07, at 6:45 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
can some one tell me what does one require to develop virus for the linux kernel or gnu OS?
One requires a stupid (or at least clueless) user. There are millions of them around.
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
Yes it can, otherwise web- and ftp-propagating worms and trojans for Linux would not exist. You don't even need a user, just a bad web programmer or a vulnerable binary.
Regards,
-- Raju
On 11-Jul-07, at 11:38 AM, Raj Mathur wrote:
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
Yes it can, otherwise web- and ftp-propagating worms and trojans for Linux would not exist
i am not talking of worms and trojans - i am talking of virus
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 11:47, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Jul-07, at 11:38 AM, Raj Mathur wrote:
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
Yes it can, otherwise web- and ftp-propagating worms and trojans for Linux would not exist
i am not talking of worms and trojans - i am talking of virus
OK, Mr Hair-splitter, yes it can.
--- Raju
On 11-Jul-07, at 12:13 PM, Raj Mathur wrote:
i am not talking of worms and trojans - i am talking of virus
OK, Mr Hair-splitter, yes it can.
cool
Hi,
On 7/11/07, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 11:47, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Jul-07, at 11:38 AM, Raj Mathur wrote:
but no one has answered Krishnakanth's question: given a stupid user who downloads and runs an executable containing a virus - can this executable 'infect' other executables and propagate in linux?
Yes it can, otherwise web- and ftp-propagating worms and trojans for Linux would not exist
i am not talking of worms and trojans - i am talking of virus
OK, Mr Hair-splitter, yes it can.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/2046203
Follow the two links in the same article.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On 11-Jul-07, at 12:35 PM, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
i am not talking of worms and trojans - i am talking of virus
OK, Mr Hair-splitter, yes it can.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/18/2046203
this comment rocks:
<snip> Performance is only a small part of the issue. You have to look at the TCO of running viruses to appreciate Windows properly. With Linux it is far harder to run a virus and you've got to train all your users to chmod etc. With Windows it's much eaiser, just double click or drag and drop. Now that saves you a bundle in IT tech support when people ask "how do I install virus X on my PC. Further, with Windows you get a lot more choice. You can get a wide selection of popular viruses from easy to download sources. Linux is pretty short on choice, so if you switch to Linux you're limiting choice which is UnAmerican. </snip>
Vipul Mathur wrote:
From that link, this is a very informative article on vulnerability of Windows and Linux to security threats.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
On Saturday 30 June 2007 20:43, Rony wrote:
Vipul Mathur wrote:
From that link, this is a very informative article on vulnerability of Windows and Linux to security threats.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
Please dont quote the register except for seeing the funny side of things.
some important points on the virus issue. a virus is supposed to execute on the client computer without the user's permission or knowledge or in most cases both. this can't happen on linux because without permission no virus can ever execute on a linux machine. one needs to chmod the file to be executable. if what some people call as "virus " exists on the linux platform then they forget the fact that no file can ever execute on a linux machine just like that. now coming to the point of developing some trogen. it is now the responsibility of a user to manage his or her own house and this is nothing to do with any OS for that matter. is it not possible that if at all such a thing exists then it gets known to the fre software community and the communication (through forums, glugs etc )is pritty fast to alert the people? all these points are very bad incentives for virus developers who want to attack linux. regards, Krishnakant.
On 02-Jul-07, at 12:57 PM, krishnakant Mane wrote:
now coming to the point of developing some trogen. it is now the responsibility of a user to manage his or her own house and this is nothing to do with any OS for that matter.
Sorry, but that's not how it is. It *is* the OS's (or an anti-virus software's) responsibility to ensure that programs do nothing more than what they are supposed to do. Even on Windows, that is what Norton, McAfee et. al. do. On Linux, you might extend my previous example by running a daemon that monitors all the fd's being accessed by a particular executable. For instance, if the flash installer is trying to modify certain core system files, the daemon can immediately detect this and put a stop to it. Think iptables, but at the filesystem level. Of course, this would mean you would need to know the behavior of every program and allow the user to add custom rules, but that is what existing anti-virus software do anyway.
There is an alternative method, which is most prominently used in distributions these days - called sandboxing. In Gentoo [1], whenever you install a package via a package manager, it first writes the files to a temporary "sandbox" location, and only after verifying that there are no "sandbox violations" - or files written to where they were not supposed to be - is the package merged back into root. Hence, coupled with GPG signing and Manifests, the chances of a virus/ trojan being transmitted via a distro's package management system comes down to near-nil.
Further research is being undertaken in this area, by extending the concept of namespaces to every process - for more information, check out Plan 9 from Bell Labs [2].
-- Anant Narayanan http://www.kix.in/
[1] http://bugday.gentoo.org/sandbox.html [2] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/
Hi,
--- Anant Narayanan anant@kix.in wrote:
Sorry, but that's not how it is. It *is* the OS's (or an anti-virus software's) responsibility to ensure that programs do nothing more than what they are supposed to do.
Actually, in the *nix philosophy, OS is only responsible for mechanism, and not policy.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html
SK
-- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
On 30-Jun-07, at 1:02 PM, krishnakant Mane wrote:
unix and thus linux can't have viruses.
they can have viruses. The only thing is that unless such viruses are activated by the root user, these viruses cant do much damage - at the most they can screw up the user's home directory.
On 7/1/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 30-Jun-07, at 1:02 PM, krishnakant Mane wrote:
unix and thus linux can't have viruses.
they can have viruses. The only thing is that unless such viruses are activated by the root user, these viruses cant do much damage - at the most they can screw up the user's home directory.
Also, the binary viruses will need to be explicitly chmod'ed to give them execute permissions -- the last time I checked, nothing that is downloaded from the internet is given execute permissions directly.
If the virus is in an archive, you'll need to actually un-archive it and then execute it -- this is probably the most likely way to spread. But then again, impact will be limited to the users privileges on the system.
On 7/1/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 30-Jun-07, at 1:02 PM, krishnakant Mane wrote:
unix and thus linux can't have viruses.
they can have viruses. The only thing is that unless such viruses are activated by the root user, these viruses cant do much damage - at the most they can screw up the user's home directory.
IMHO, since most home users don't have any backups, damaging the user's files is a good enough accomplishment for a virus.
Regards, Mohan S N
--- Rony wrote:
This is a nice article in TOI, encouraging people to make a switch to GNU/Linux.
<url removed>
The picture accompanying the article in the (physical) newspaper, displays a Laptop running Windows XP. I wonder, why couldn't the author find a desktop / laptop running Kubuntu (which he describes in the article) ? The author doesn't mention links to this User Group as a medium of help.
I just hope that authors like these are in contact with public groups such as us (GLUG-BOM) or atleast search about details, before reporting / writing about GNU, Linux and Free Software.
-- FSF of India Associate Fellow - http://www.gnu.org.in S K Somaiya College of Arts, Science and Commerce - http://www.somaiya.edu/sksasc ubunturos @ freenode
__________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:45:05 +0100 (BST), Roshan d_rosh2001@yahoo.co.in wrote:
--- Rony wrote:
This is a nice article in TOI, encouraging people to make a switch to GNU/Linux.
<url removed>
The picture accompanying the article in the (physical) newspaper, displays a Laptop running Windows XP.
Soooo.. bad.
I wonder, why couldn't the author find a deskt .... The author doesn't mention .... I just hope that authors like ....
_Always_ include the editor. Almost every article that goes into the paper goes through a "Snip-Snap" "Content-enhancement" and such phases, with most of the times, the article or the content ending up exactly the way the author did _not_ want it to be.
It may not be apparent in most general knowledge articles as the editor would have enough knowledge, but in "specialized" "technical" topic, it is quite.
I am not saying that the author is not wrong.. It is just that most of the times the editor is the main contributor to such mistakes.
Roshan wrote:
The author doesn't mention links to this User Group as a medium of help.
I just hope that authors like these are in contact with public groups such as us (GLUG-BOM) or atleast search about details, before reporting / writing about GNU, Linux and Free Software.
In the link provided, you can post comments to the editor.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:33:13 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Roshan wrote:
The author doesn't mention links to this User Group as a medium of help.
<snip/>
In the link provided, you can post comments to the editor.
^^^^^^
:-p
On 6/30/07, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hello All,
This is a nice article in TOI, encouraging people to make a switch to GNU/Linux.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/City_Supplements/Bombay_Times/Time...
The author could have added that CDs are shipped from shipit for gratis (muft). I added a comment there.
Regards, Mohan S N
On 7/1/07, Mohan Nayaka mohansn@gmail.com wrote:
The author could have added that CDs are shipped from shipit for gratis (muft). I added a comment there.
Actually the best part about the article is that the author has stressed on the fact that Linux is superior with respect to user friendliness, ease of use, etc rather than on the cost.
Overall, I think it's a decent article where he tells briefly about how good Linux based operating systems are and then provides basic info on how to get it (ISO images, Ship-IT; he could have added just a bit more here though). His article is slanted towards Kubuntu but I guess anything Linux is good. Ok, not Novell I guess ;)
It also gives a catchy tag line -- "Time for a Switch?". Got 50 INR to spare? What kind of ad space would 50 INR per head buy us on Times of India/Midday? We could put up the stuff that the article missed out on -- places from where users could download or buy Linux.
-
Anant Narayanan -
Chetan S -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
krishnakant Mane -
Laxminarayan G Kamath A -
mehul -
Mohan Nayaka -
Nishit Dave -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Roshan -
Shakthi Kannan -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Vipul Mathur