Torvalds Patches For 'Virus'
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| grouch Apr 19, 2006 12:30 AM EDT |
Jeez. That must be one wicked 'virus' if it requires patching the kernel for it to work. Next time one of the parasitic anti-virus companies wants to make big FUD with some Linux 'virus', they should first run it by the kernel hackers. At least that way they will have a working piece of software. The corporate ticks will then have to figure out how to (a) get users to download the code, (b) get users to set the execute bit, (c) get users to run the code, (c) get users to spread the code to other users with similar systems. Instead of (c), they could devise some means to escalate privileges (some kind of rootkit payload) and then find a wormhole by which it can spread itself. Of course, with all of that baggage it's going to be pretty suspicious in size. It seems hardly worth the effort even for something as sleazy as the anti-virus industry. A virus depends upon a gullible user and sloppy permissions. There will always be gullible users, but if untrusted code is not auto-executed, as it is through many 'features' of the world's worst software seller (Microsoft), then the untrusted code just lays there. Any sloppy permissions that show up in (truly) free software can be fixed too quickly for a virus to become a problem sufficient to support the anti-virus parasites. Those developers working on free software who try to imitate the bad features of the world's worst software will simply lose credibility. Their coding efforts will become wasted. It is not correct behavior for user software to auto-damage user files. Note that Torvalds was patching for correct behavior. If a user chooses to run untrusted software, that software should run correctly. It should not run just because it is downloaded or just because it happens to have a certain name. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 19, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
Yes Grouch, it's pretty pitiful. Poor ole AV industry, that dern Linux is threatening to take the bread from their children's mouths. "Note that Torvalds was patching for correct behavior. If a user chooses to run untrusted software, that software should run correctly. It should not run just because it is downloaded or just because it happens to have a certain name." Good point. It's still funny. |
| grouch Apr 19, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: I get the feeling they're desperate to come up with some reason to continue to exist. The desperation of the AV ticks is a good barometer for measuring how many people are actually using Linux. (Sales figures are about the least trustworthy way of measuring Linux usage, since MS manages so well to coerce the installation of MS with most sales). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!