5 months and still infection free!

[pretty_whistle]

This thread has changed from a Testimonial to a Recurring Discussion.

Yes.

It seems my testimonial set things off. Haha.

[pretty_whistle]

Steps to Virus Protection in Windows:
1. Install the latest Microsoft updates.
2. Purchase a reputable antivirus program.
3. After installing an antivirus program, scan your entire computer to be sure it is free of malware.
4. Update your antivirus definitions regularly.
5. Be suspicious of any and all unsolicited e-mail attachments.
6. Stay informed about viruses and virus hoaxes.
7. Install a personal firewall program.
8. Download software only if you are sure the Web site is legitimate.
9. Avoid as best you can visiting unscrupulous Web sites.

Long-time Linux only - I only do 1-2 of these.

A life of simplicity!
Saying that the design of the OS isn't a factor is just crazy.

Yeah it is crazy.

[haqking]

It's possible for Windows to become infected without doing anything. About 11 years ago I converted from dial-up Internet to high-speed cable Internet. I was running Windows 98 at the time. My computer was connected to the cable modem for about 5 minutes while I was setting up the firewall program. During that 5 minutes Windows 98 had acquired three viruses. (After the firewall was in place, it was never infected again.)

I don't know if Linux would have been infected that quickly without a firewall, but I doubt it.

As said above a virus or "infection" is not likely to effect Linux because there are little to none in the wild for linux (currently)

A firewall has little or nothing to do with viruses or being infected by them either.

Also windows 98 was a security and virus joke as we all know and is ancient, we are at least trying to stay in the present tense here.

Also viruses do not float around on the ether waiting for an internet connection, a virus replicates itself through file attachment and execution, they dont sit on the internet waiting for someone to connect to it, and if they did it has next to nothing to do with a firewall.

And my points were not about which one is more or less likely to get "infected" by a virus, we all already know there is little chance as there are no wild linux viruses currently, there easily could be though.

Cheers

[haqking]

Yes.

It seems my testimonial set things off. Haha.

indeed

I think i veered it off course by mentioning security overall, when your OP actually just referred to a infection implying virus and other malware (which does not necessarily relate to security compromise unless you refer to trojans such as keyloggers or rootkits which are not viruses)

In that sense as already stated i agree, you are not likely to be "infected" due to the lack of infectious malware out there for Linux (currently)

So my apologies for taking things off track with security in general

[WthIteh]

Interesting thread

For worms: Linux requires latest security updates as much as windows requires latest updates. Otherwise both could get infected easily (if they were targeted). But Linux security updates usually become available faster than windows updates. Windows updates are also delivered in relatively more huge packs (and so harder to download and ignored by users sometimes to not slow down network connection). This seems enough to argue that Linux is more secure against worms in respect to Windows (not because design but because the method of patch distribution; while they are equally vulnerable to yet non-patched holes).

For viruses: Viruses are not designed to spread by themselves (otherwise we call them worm). So user interaction is required for a virus to spread. It maybe from downloading and running an email attachment till an USB autorun malware.... In this case Windows users suffer more from autorun. Linux does not run "autorun" files without asking/warning user about it (at least my Linux box does so by default). Also in Linux, users have less incentives for helping viruses to spread because most software are installed from well-known repositories while in Windows a lot of users have used to download programs from everywhere (like the recently revealed insecure download dot com as reported here). It's OK to say users' habits will rule this case but OS affects users' habits It seems reasonable again to argue Linux is more secure than Windows in this case too (not because viruses can not infect it, but because it drives its users in a way that viruses have very less chance to infect them; still stupid users could run viruses with root access by their will).

I think above arguments are independent from the fact that there are very fewer active malwares for the Linux than for the Windows in the wild.
If not, I'll be happy to correct my arguments.

--PS: Of course above arguments just go for the normal/average cases and any OS could goes from very secure till very insecure spectrum by its user

[Simian Man]

It's possible for Windows to become infected without doing anything. About 11 years ago I converted from dial-up Internet to high-speed cable Internet. I was running Windows 98 at the time. My computer was connected to the cable modem for about 5 minutes while I was setting up the firewall program. During that 5 minutes Windows 98 had acquired three viruses. (After the firewall was in place, it was never infected again.)

Windows 98 was not nearly so secure as it is nowadays. I still doubt your story though.

[techvish81]

whats an infection?

+1

[Juan Largo]

Which part of my story do you doubt?

a) Windows 98 became infected without a firewall or
b) Windows 98 didn't become infected with a firewall

Try this:

Install Windows 98 and connect your computer up to a cable modem without a router or a firewall and see how long it takes to acquire a virus. Then maybe you'll become a believer.

[SeijiSensei]

Windows 98 was not nearly so secure as it is nowadays. I still doubt your story though.

No, he's right. Win98 was a constant target for worms, with infected machines trying valiantly to pass along the malware to any machines they could see on the Internet. Many estimates put the time to infection at twenty minutes for a fresh Win98 install without a firewall. Slammer and Nimda were especially effective.

Of course, we're talking about a situation from the early 2000's. Win7 is a lot more secure than 98 ever was.

[haqking]

Which part of my story do you doubt?

a) Windows 98 became infected without a firewall or
b) Windows 98 didn't become infected with a firewall

Try this:

Install Windows 98 and connect your computer up to a cable modem without a router or a firewall and see how long it takes to acquire a virus. Then maybe you'll become a believer.

A virus is not a worm.

And a virus has nothing to do with a firewall