| 1 |
On Saturday 06 Jul 2013 07:57:38 the wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> > William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> >>> While we was |
| 7 |
> >>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as |
| 8 |
> >>> windoze and so is a Mac. I think my laughing let him know I wasn't |
| 9 |
> >>> buying his comment. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well this is just FUD. Linux and BSDs are much much less prone to virus |
| 12 |
infection due to their architecture and default authentication restrictions. |
| 13 |
Also your average Linux user, well at least your average Linux desktop user is |
| 14 |
more clued up than the MSWindows equivalent. With the advent of Linux to |
| 15 |
mobile devices (Android) this statement is no longer true. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> >> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up |
| 19 |
> >> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be in |
| 20 |
> >> use. Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine ... |
| 21 |
> >> |
| 22 |
> >> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather than |
| 23 |
> >> self starting. |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> BillK |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > Well, no Wine here. So that won't happen. Actually, I don't have a |
| 28 |
> > copy of windoze here at all. Neither of my two rigs have ever had |
| 29 |
> > windoze installed on them at all. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'm sure some poster in 2003/04 posted in this same list about a MSWindows |
| 32 |
malware running in Wine. That's indication of good code as far as I'm |
| 33 |
concerned, because most MSWindows programs that I tried would fall over |
| 34 |
themselves in Wine! LOL! |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open |
| 38 |
> > them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in |
| 39 |
> > there. Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion |
| 40 |
> > that is human readable. They sent it and I'm nosy that way. lol |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Perhaps it's easier to use strings? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
hexdump -C <suspect_payload> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
You may have to unzip it first, because a lot of malware is zipped to escape |
| 47 |
detection from some simpler anti-virus checkers. You can also use dd and pipe |
| 48 |
it to an antivirus to see if it finds anything known. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
All OS are susceptible to malware, but not all malware are viruses. At least |
| 51 |
one virus has existed for Linux (in the 90s or early 00s), but it was patched |
| 52 |
overnight if I remember right. Other than that I don't know of any programs |
| 53 |
which can be replicated on Linux machines. I think this is because despite |
| 54 |
Lennart's efforts no two linux OS are exactly the same. So, as the virus is |
| 55 |
trying to replicate itself it will fall down at the next box it tries to |
| 56 |
infect. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
However, rogue add-ons in browsers, increasingly sophisticated JavaScripts, |
| 59 |
and HTML 5 with all its cross-domain/cross-site-request potential could wreck |
| 60 |
at least some of your data and steal your information, just as easily as the |
| 61 |
adjacent MSWindows box. Oh, before I forget, did I mention Java? |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Linux running on mobile devices is a different category because there is great |
| 64 |
uniformity of the OS across devices. This is a big target for any malware |
| 65 |
writers and state actors who value their coding time: |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/android-security-hole/ |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
Regards, |
| 71 |
Mick |
Archives