Linux security

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 29 April 2006 01:50, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Stephen R Laniel wrote:
> > You seem to be looking for a guarantee. You're not going to
> > get one.
>
> Your whole email was good except for this line. How many times do I
> have to say that I'm not looking for a guarantee before people will
> listen? I said it right on the first email I sent, first paragraph.
> I spent a whole pagragraph saying that the question is not "is
> Linux inmune to viruses?" but "is Linux inhospitable to viruses?".
> I said that again twice afterwards. This is the FOURTH time I have
> to say this. How difficult is it for people to understand this?
> It's not a difficult concept you know? I'm fully darn well aware
> that there isn't a piece of conde on this side of the galaxy that
> is completely inmune to security threats. There is no security
> system that can't be broken. The objective of security is to raise
> the bar. To make it more difficult for security breaches to occur
> and to minimize the damange when they do. And that is what I've
> been seeking out here. Geez!

Daniel,

You already know the answer to your basic question:

No. 

When talking to your hypothetical MS fundie you will have to concede 
that a users data is equally vulnerable on Linux and Windows once 
executable malware is present. The benefit with Linux is that it's 
harder to deploy the malware in the first place and it's much harder 
to get it to be executable (execute bit and umask).

If you ever have this debate with an MS fundie, I suggest you side 
step that problematic question by (validly) pointing out that the 
other guy is setting up a straw man.

-- 
If only you and dead people understand hex, 
how many people understand hex?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five