basic - continued
magick.crow at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 15:37:04 UTC 2010
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
> Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
>>> Yes, I have, but it still can't predict an attack that has yet to be
>>> invented. I believe too strongly in the inventiveness of mankind to
>>> really trust /any/ anti-virus, no matter how well-touted.
>> So no protection is the best protection? I'm probably being a bit
>> extreme. But this argument always ends up with a "unplug your machine
>> from the interwebs".
> That's not what he said either. Just that you shouldn't trust any
> anti-virus 100%. Because there's no such thing as a perfect
> anti-virus. It's better to have some protection, than no protection
> at all, of course. That's my opinion.
But what it comes down to is that there are no know wild Linux viruses
or other infective programs yet. Because of this, most people don't
run anti-viral programs and even if they did they likely would not
catch whatever new thing does get invented. The best it might do is
stop its spread, if the virus checkers could update their databases
Ya know thinking about this, it might be worth it to write a program
that checked the repositories for a virus alert and if one was found
Conical or perhaps the whole linux world could warn us all and tell us
what to do. It would not take much to set that up. You look at the
computer one day and see a red flashing icon, then you click it for
more instructions. IT could even be set up with levels of warning and
levels of reaction per user. On the other hand that is what security
updates are all about.
Douglas E Knapp
Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project.
More information about the ubuntu-users