PDA

View Full Version : Brother a Linux convert



Mr Bean
February 28th, 2010, 04:42 PM
I have a story I'd like to share with you guys, in case you're interested.

A few weeks back my younger brother's XP Pro installation had become infested with various malware. I booted into an Ubuntu live CD and used ClamAV to remove about a half dozen Trojans. We booted back into XP only to find it was still overrun with some undetected nasty, slowing the system to a crawl and throwing up innumerable errors and warnings.

At that point I flat out refused to even try and fix it, so we booted back into the live CD and backed up his files to an external hard drive before formatting the disk.

That's when he asked me if I could set up his PC to dual boot Windows and Ubuntu. Of course I was delighted to do so, but I didn't really expect that he'd use Ubuntu. He'd seen me using it and referred to it as "difficult", "boring" etc. So I set Grub to boot into Windows by default and left him to it.

It's been a few days now and every time I check up on him, guess which OS he's using? That's right: Ubuntu. I asked why and he said he's scared of viruses. Well that's a good enough reason I think. And to think he wasn't the least bit worried about malware last month, now it's his main consideration when choosing an OS.

I had told him about running not running XP as an admin, and showed him the official Microsoft documentation on the subject but he said "nothing works in Windows when you're not an admin".

Another Linux convert I think.

LinuxFanBoi
February 28th, 2010, 04:44 PM
Viruses are not considered a problem in Linux only because the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree.

Mr Bean
February 28th, 2010, 04:53 PM
Viruses are not considered a problem in Linux only because the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree.

Of course. I'd never deny the existence of Linux malware but I do believe the problem it poses is negligible in comparison to Windows. We could debate the reason for that but the fact remains that Linux is a safer bet for your average user. IMHO.

MooPi
February 28th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Viruses are not considered a problem in Linux only because the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree.
I've always wondered about this notion. Would virus's even be a problem if Linux had been first. I'd like to suppose that computer viruses as we know would not exist. Because of the Linux system design, I imagine we'd have evil hacks but a virus no. Definition of a computer virus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

That's really cool your brother likes Linux. Now it's your job to help the little noob along. :p

LinuxFanBoi
February 28th, 2010, 04:58 PM
True that. Congratulations on bringing another into the fold.

whiskeylover
February 28th, 2010, 05:01 PM
I converted my hamster to linux.

Kdar
February 28th, 2010, 05:02 PM
We need to make like a special sticky thread about conversion or make a sub-section for this :)

Bright_View
February 28th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Viruses are not considered a problem in Linux only because the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree.

I don't think this is true, though I'm not a security expert by any means. Windows is more vulnerable largely due to the way it's used by users - always as admins. That means that viruses which infect the system have admin privileges to do whatever they want - copy themselves to system files, replicate, etc.

In Ubuntu, nobody runs as root user which means that any virus which infects the system only has privileges equal to the user. The spread of a virus in the wild is hampered by this, because the virus does not have the ability to infect anything other than the user account it initially infected. In the wild then, the spread of linux viruses is very difficult.

Here is an article discussing this and other more technical points regarding this issue:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188

Bottom line: Even if more people used linux, there would not be a massive increase in linux viruses, provided all new users didn't decide to run as root all the time.

MooPi
February 28th, 2010, 05:05 PM
I converted my hamster to linux.
Just hope it's name isn't Brain and doesn't have notions of RULING THE WORLD :twisted:

MooPi
February 28th, 2010, 05:06 PM
We need to make like a special sticky thread about conversion or make a sub-section for this :)
Agreed !

LinuxFanBoi
February 28th, 2010, 05:08 PM
In Ubuntu, nobody runs as root user which means that any virus which infects the system only has privileges equal to the user. The spread of a virus in the wild is hampered by this, because the virus does not have the ability to infect anything other than the user account it initially infected. In the wild then, the spread of linux viruses is very difficult.

How many no tech-savvy users do you think would give a moments consideration to any install script that prompted them for their password to elevate the programs privileges? Remember, we're talking about the people who said that Windows Vista was broken because it always asked them permission to give a program access to the system when in fact Linux is designed to do the same thing and we call this a feature and a safeguard.

LinuxFanBoi
February 28th, 2010, 05:10 PM
Just hope it's name isn't Brain and doesn't have notions of RULING THE WORLD :twisted:

If it does and this hamster is now using Linux, we're f*cked! Everybody RUN!!!

bluelamp999
February 28th, 2010, 05:10 PM
Just hope it's name isn't Brain and doesn't have notions of RULING THE WORLD :twisted:

Um, Brain was a genetically enhanced laboratory mouse not a hamster...

dyslexia
February 28th, 2010, 05:18 PM
So what do I do when my porn downloader insists it needs admin priviledges in order to bring me pictures of all those beautiful, orally capable (i.e. s**king) women.

Surely you wouldn't have me deny it...

Kdar
February 28th, 2010, 05:22 PM
I hope that hamster will not watch porn.

whiskeylover
February 28th, 2010, 05:28 PM
I don't think this is true, though I'm not a security expert by any means. Windows is more vulnerable largely due to the way it's used by users - always as admins. That means that viruses which infect the system have admin privileges to do whatever they want - copy themselves to system files, replicate, etc.

Not since Vista. Now users are prompted for their password to elevate their privileges temporarily - Just like in linux.




In Ubuntu, nobody runs as root user which means that any virus which infects the system only has privileges equal to the user. The spread of a virus in the wild is hampered by this, because the virus does not have the ability to infect anything other than the user account it initially infected. In the wild then, the spread of linux viruses is very difficult.

Unless they have to "sudo" to install a seemingly harmless app, which is actually a virus in disguise.

whiskeylover
February 28th, 2010, 05:33 PM
Um, Brain was a genetically enhanced laboratory mouse not a hamster...

Potato potaato

bluelamp999
February 28th, 2010, 06:00 PM
Potato potaato

Hamster != Mouse (genetically enhanced or otherwise)

I will defend this to the death...

-kg-
February 28th, 2010, 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright_View

"I don't think this is true, though I'm not a security expert by any means. Windows is more vulnerable largely due to the way it's used by users - always as admins. That means that viruses which infect the system have admin privileges to do whatever they want - copy themselves to system files, replicate, etc."

Not since Vista. Now users are prompted for their password to elevate their privileges temporarily - Just like in linux.

And this can be disabled, just like in Linux. With Ubuntu this is made a bit difficult; you have to research and find the information to enable logging in to the root account, but it can be done. In Vista you can just disable it. But other distros make this easier, and in a few it is default (such as Puppy).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright_View

"In Ubuntu, nobody runs as root user which means that any virus which infects the system only has privileges equal to the user. The spread of a virus in the wild is hampered by this, because the virus does not have the ability to infect anything other than the user account it initially infected. In the wild then, the spread of linux viruses is very difficult."

Unless they have to "sudo" to install a seemingly harmless app, which is actually a virus in disguise.

Exactly right, and a good example of this happened recently. Google "gnome look malware" and you will come up with references to the following story:

Malware Hidden Inside Screensaver, Theme on GNOME-Look (http://www.osnews.com/story/22625/Malware_Hidden_Inside_Screensaver_Theme_on_GNOME-Look):


posted by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 21:38 UTC

This news is already a week old, but it only got submitted to us today, and I didn't notice it all. As it turns out, two malicious software packages had been uploaded to GNOME-Look.org, masquerading as valid .deb packages (a GNOME screensaver and theme, respectively).

The two cases were discovered shortly after one another. First, it was discovered that malware was masquerading as a screensaver. It came as a .deb package, but instead of installing a screensaver, it would execute a script which would mess with some files and download a few other scripts which would make the affected machine take part in a DDoS attack, while also allowing it to update itself.

Linux is no more immune to "stupid and lazy" than Windows is. Indeed, there are two reasons that Linux has such a paucity of malware; 1). As was stated earlier, "the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree." It is a much larger target, with many more (ignorant) users. And...

2) Linux users are, in general, more knowledgable than those of Windows. Generally, they have installed their own systems and know more of computers, software, and operating systems than the Windows "casual computer users." That doesn't mean we don't have a few, though. Obviously we do, or the incident wouldn't have existed.

It is nice to have all the "eye candy" and software that performs different functions, but when installing from a third party repository or source of software, care has to be taken to ensure that it has no malware. Ideal would be a "sandbox" computer on which questionable software can be installed, evaluated, monitored, and scanned before installation on your "main squeeze."

There isn't much malware for Linux, but it does exist, and it can be written. Combine that with careless users and Linux will lose its "malware-exempt status." Easily!

RabbitWho
February 28th, 2010, 07:47 PM
I converted my hamster to linux.

I dual booted my hamster with cat, best of both worlds.

MooPi
February 28th, 2010, 07:50 PM
I dual booted my hamster with cat, best of both worlds.
Pervert ;)

Malakai
February 28th, 2010, 09:46 PM
How many no tech-savvy users do you think would give a moments consideration to any install script that prompted them for their password to elevate the programs privileges? Remember, we're talking about the people who said that Windows Vista was broken because it always asked them permission to give a program access to the system when in fact Linux is designed to do the same thing and we call this a feature and a safeguard.

They just aren't the same thing. On linux I always run as a user account and sudo (tho often I log in as root in a terminal), but on WinVista/7 I always turn off user account control first thing.

The permissions system of linux is part of linux and how it works, UAC was just tacked on after the fact. What purpose having to click an "Ok" box every 10 seconds helped serves was beyond me =)

scouser73
March 1st, 2010, 01:47 AM
Viruses are not considered a problem in Linux only because the Windows fruit hangs lower on the PC tree.

How very true I find that to be.

@MrBean

That's great news to have made your brother see that there is a viable alternative to operating systems. I'm sure he'll have endless hours of carefree computing now that he's using Ubuntu, I love reading posts about people having chosen Ubuntu.

dyslexia
March 1st, 2010, 04:31 AM
They just aren't the same thing. On linux I always run as a user account and sudo (tho often I log in as root in a terminal), but on WinVista/7 I always turn off user account control first thing.

The permissions system of linux is part of linux and how it works, UAC was just tacked on after the fact. What purpose having to click an "Ok" box every 10 seconds helped serves was beyond me =)

Ditto.

witeshark17
March 1st, 2010, 04:56 AM
Glad your bro has found a proper OS with your help. :KS

sudoer541
March 1st, 2010, 04:57 PM
I converted my hamster to linux.


That was a nice one LOL!!!!!!!!
I used windows for my whole life and I never got a virus! People need to be more careful. In fact I dont even have an antivirus installed, however I install AV sometimes to check for viruses (just in case) but I have no viruses and later I un-install the AV.
Windows is a great OS, but ppl need to be careful.

markbuntu
March 3rd, 2010, 12:55 AM
Most people do not have any clue how their computer works and even less of a clue when it doesn't.

An inherently safe OS will make their life easier. MS has blelatedly realized this but the basic environment of MS software operation and distribution, and the expectations of the users, makes this transition somewhat problematic. They can add security features but these degrade the user experience. To build security features in quickly would require the adoption of a lot of open source code which would immediately put them in a precarious position.

Apple faced this same problem some years ago and adopted BSD as its base OS because the cost of rebuilding their system to make it secure was prohibitive. They have bascially repositioned themselves as just another linux-like remix but with a suite of bespoke applications and a big installed marketing base.

It would be far different for MS to go down this path. They dominate the OS and application markets because they control the API, the application programming interface. If they move to open source they would lose control of the API and their OS monopoly would quickly disappear as programmers would code to an open source API that could run on many OSs.

It is the big problem MS faces. How much longer can they reinvent the wheel and keep control of the API. Already many programmers have moved to open source APIs that will run their applications regardless of the OS. As more and more applications move to OS agnostic programming platforms it becomes less and less viable in the longer term for MS to continue down this path.

They have a huge pile of money and huge market share but they cannot keep it forever.

Kai69
March 3rd, 2010, 02:08 AM
Most people do not have any clue how their computer works and even less of a clue when it doesn't.

An inherently safe OS will make their life easier. MS has blelatedly realized this but the basic environment of MS software operation and distribution, and the expectations of the users, makes this transition somewhat problematic. They can add security features but these degrade the user experience. To build security features in quickly would require the adoption of a lot of open source code which would immediately put them in a precarious position.

Apple faced this same problem some years ago and adopted BSD as its base OS because the cost of rebuilding their system to make it secure was prohibitive. They have bascially repositioned themselves as just another linux-like remix but with a suite of bespoke applications and a big installed marketing base.

It would be far different for MS to go down this path. They dominate the OS and application markets because they control the API, the application programming interface. If they move to open source they would lose control of the API and their OS monopoly would quickly disappear as programmers would code to an open source API that could run on many OSs.

It is the big problem MS faces. How much longer can they reinvent the wheel and keep control of the API. Already many programmers have moved to open source APIs that will run their applications regardless of the OS. As more and more applications move to OS agnostic programming platforms it becomes less and less viable in the longer term for MS to continue down this path.

They have a huge pile of money and huge market share but they cannot keep it forever.

Wouldnt this be a good thing? If MS was to go OSS the programers would fix a lot of problems in windows but also move Linux forward faster. If MS would just think about where their going I would love to see them make a linux distro I think a lot more GUI interfaces would be available and a lot less use of terminal..
( just to point out im not MS bashing ) :P

MooPi
March 3rd, 2010, 03:00 AM
Wouldnt this be a good thing? If MS was to go OSS the programers would fix a lot of problems in windows but also move Linux forward faster. If MS would just think about where their going I would love to see them make a linux distro I think a lot more GUI interfaces would be available and a lot less use of terminal..
( just to point out im not MS bashing ) :P
Bite your tongue. I like the terminal and want more of it. Seriously.

Psumi
March 3rd, 2010, 04:20 AM
I had told him about running not running XP as an admin, and showed him the official Microsoft documentation on the subject but he said "nothing works in Windows when you're not an admin".

if his computer is x86 and not x64:

http://sudown.sourceforge.net/

ubunterooster
March 3rd, 2010, 05:18 AM
True that. Congratulations on bringing another into the fold.+1


We need to make like a special sticky thread about conversion or make a sub-section for this :) +1

@psumi: my dad converted over the 3 min boot time and freezing