The Battle Against Malware Is Being Lost on That Other OS

Not only is the rate of production of new malware increasing but gaining in sophistication too:
“in the last month alone two new malware samples were undetected by all 42 virus scanners and many were detected by only a handful of products. “

Malware, alone, is more than enough reason to migrate to GNU/Linux which is a much more resilient OS, harder to penetrate, and not event the target of most malware. I recommend Debian GNU/Linux because it works for you and not M$, its “partners” and definitely not for malware artists.

See Michael Horowitz – How useful is antivirus software? | Computerworld Blogs.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Battle Against Malware Is Being Lost on That Other OS

  1. oldman says:

    “Really this is the problem. As this case of malware spread becoming more and more unstoppable by methods windows is still using. It will not matter at all if there applications are just on Windows.”

    Then the methods will change sir for the same reason that windows or its descendents will continue to be used. Its where the applications are.

    Again nothing you can do about that except keep running windows as you do.

  2. Debian GNU/Linux includes systemd in the repository:
    “apt-cache search systemd
    live-config-systemd – Debian Live – System Configuration Scripts (systemd backend)
    libpam-systemd – system and service manager – PAM module
    libsystemd-daemon-dev – systemd utility library – development files
    libsystemd-daemon0 – systemd utility library
    libsystemd-id128-0 – systemd 128 bit ID utility library
    libsystemd-id128-dev – systemd 128 bit ID utility library – development files
    libsystemd-journal-dev – systemd journal utility library – development files
    libsystemd-journal0 – systemd journal utility library
    libsystemd-login-dev – systemd login utility library – development files
    libsystemd-login0 – systemd login utility library
    systemd – system and service manager
    systemd-gui – system and service manager – GUI
    systemd-sysv – system and service manager – SysV links”

  3. oiaohm says:

    Ivan “No they won’t. Instead of obfuscated shell scripts that no one bothers reading it will be obfuscated C code that no one bothers reading.”

    There is a difference. A human is not the only thing that audits C code. Compliers and other tools audit C code. Defects with modern compliers and checking tools like klee.llvm.org don’t lay hidden in C code like they do in shell scripts.

    “Not that anyone outside of Red Hat will ever use systemd.”
    Sorry no other distributions have picked up systemd. OpenSUSE and SUSE default is already systemd.

    Ivan
    “You don’t have much experience within Debian, do you?”
    15+ years Ivan. Did a white paper covering its complete history and history of other distributions comparing security feature implementations. I will be truthful debian did not rate as high as other distributions and AIX or Solaris I did the study on. I was asked to perform the same study against windows checking versions for the same kinds of defects. This is what turned me against Windows in the first place. Defect after defect just being found when trying to compare it to other secure OS’s.

    This is your problem Ivan you have never done up a non bias white paper on the topic. Non bias requires you to take what is good secure OS design then check how well each OS matches up to that. Debian not great but Windows is way worse. OS X is also slightly ahead of Windows but its also behind debian for implemented secuirty.

    Yes the annoying part is how much of good secuirty windows supports and the reason its not there is that MS default setting are defective.

    Ivan get the point if a person judges if I am worth while based on the existence of spelling errors they are a bigot.

  4. oiaohm says:

    oldman
    “But they will spend the time because in the end Windows is where their applications are, and that sir is a fact that you cant get around no matter how much you babble on about security.”

    Really this is the problem. As this case of malware spread becoming more and more unstoppable by methods windows is still using. It will not matter at all if there applications are just on Windows.

    What would you do if every day of the week your client machines are down due to malware. Production time will drop to where the machines are worthless.

    The new infections are this nasty. Reason the infection itself is bringing in new versions of it self. So you can be trapped in a cycle that anti-virus solution cannot be updated fast enough. So anti-virus monitoring is worthless. HIDS and image based solutions will have to be deployed.

    Sorry oldman its not babble. This means reality changes. Windows contained in virtual machines might be the only option to run windows applications and thin terminals.

    Really you are incompetent if you think that desktop machines have to remain running windows native. Reality is unless something changes Microsoft side soon that will be completely not practical as a option.

    You babble about a Windows only environment is basically dead oldman.

  5. Ivan says:

    “Debian does not need to be pulled kicking an screaming to update this basic crud.”

    You don’t have much experience within Debian, do you?

    “Systemd and seccomp filters will see Linux harden again.”

    No they won’t. Instead of obfuscated shell scripts that no one bothers reading it will be obfuscated C code that no one bothers reading.

    Not that anyone outside of Red Hat will ever use systemd.

    “Secuirty”

    Seriously? Do yourself a favor and delete secuirty from your dictionary or at the very least put forth the effort to spell security correctly. You’ll look like less of an idiot and people will be more willing to take anything you say seriously.

  6. oldman says:

    “Windows users have a major case they need to implement it.”

    But they will spend the time because in the end Windows is where their applications are, and that sir is a fact that you cant get around no matter how much you babble on about security.

    And don’t bother calling me names, they mean nothing coming from you!

  7. oiaohm says:

    Ivan so far every compare you have done has been debian in isolation. And mostly your stuff has been bogus.

    Reality debian is ahead of Microsoft products on implementing secuirty requirements for the modern age. Come on Ivan Debian stays up to date on basic things like using chksums that still require a decent size machine to breach. Debian does not need to be pulled kicking an screaming to update this basic crud.

    Secuirty is a on going battle there is a high price to pay to failing.

    Depending on signature detection of bad items we cannot depend on going forwards. We are going to have to change to a white list policy.

    Linux is well down the road to white list policy.

    Systemd and seccomp filters will see Linux harden again. Cgroups bring secuirty that does not have a simple off switch.

    Its surprising how many attacks against Linux systems would have failed if uses had not turned off stuff like selinux. Yes Linux world does have a equal problem as windows users running without an anti-virus. Its a Linux user running with a LSM enabled is the same problem. LSM also costs some performance and at times throws some false postives.

    So yes there are some valid reasons to be up the ribs of some Linux users for disabling the OS’s provided secuirty. Note the word here provided. Windows users have a major case they need to implement it.

    Ivan
    “security through obscurity”
    Key idea how do you achieve it. You don’t achieve it by mass producing millions of machines with the same software in it. You need fragmentation for secuirty through obscurity to work.

    Yet you have MS people still try to say closed source give secuirty through obscurity.

    The fragmentations of software configurations the Linux world uses makes them a far harder target to have success against.

    So on one way you could claim that some of MS issues is lack of security through obscurity.

    I don’t class debian as top secuirty beast of the Linux word. Serous-ally is not hard to be better than the Microsoft Offering in correctness of configuration.

  8. kozmcrae says:

    Ivan wrote:

    “It’s been pointed out multiple times how horrible Debian’s defense against malware is, why bother pointing it out again?”

    When what you point out is a lie, it doesn’t matter how many time you point it out, it’s still a lie.

  9. Ivan says:

    It’s been pointed out multiple times how horrible Debian’s defense against malware is, why bother pointing it out again? Why bother asking Bob if he has figured out how to look for hidden processes yet?

    He has top and security through obscurity, what else does he need?

  10. kozmcrae says:

    Oh.

  11. I have banned a couple.

  12. kozmcrae says:

    I see the Cult of Microsoft is conspicuously absent.

    They don’t like to take on posts about the security nightmare that is Microsoft Windows.

Leave a Reply