I was present for a discussion about which is the most secure OS. I don't remember the forum but the consensus was that the most secure OS is the one you know. Anyone can wreck a system but not everyone has the ability to maintain a system.
I'm not arguing that you can run Windows as tight as Linux (no SELinux, tripwire costs $, etc). What I'm saying is if someone doesn't know Windows they'll do more harm than good. (same Linux). You can probably grep through a virus definition db and find an OS field. Probably ClamAV is your best bet here (but any may work). There's also a 50+ gig torrent of all known viruses you can look for. You could also figure out how to query vulns for the OS they're on (mitre or NIST) - probably hard. Reversing - as mentioned above, get a hex editor, and use strings. The other option is that it could have debug symbols still. Indicator lights is a piss poor way to see anything about what might be running. It's like looking at the hdd light to see how much your computer is processing. Ps - the software you're talking about is Windows. On Jul 6, 2013 5:22 AM, "Mick" <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday 06 Jul 2013 07:57:38 the wrote: > > On 07/06/13 02:21, Dale wrote: > > > William Kenworthy wrote: > > >> On 06/07/13 04:12, Dale wrote: > > > >>> While we was > > >>> chatting, he said that Linux is just as prone to getting a virus as > > >>> windoze and so is a Mac. I think my laughing let him know I wasn't > > >>> buying his comment. > > Well this is just FUD. Linux and BSDs are much much less prone to virus > infection due to their architecture and default authentication > restrictions. > Also your average Linux user, well at least your average Linux desktop > user is > more clued up than the MSWindows equivalent. With the advent of Linux to > mobile devices (Android) this statement is no longer true. > > > > >> food for thought - some years back a member of the local lug picked up > > >> that something was listening on a port that he didn't think should be > in > > >> use. Turned out to be an infected windows binary running under wine > ... > > >> > > >> I presume he had been using wine and this was left running, rather > than > > >> self starting. > > >> > > >> BillK > > > > > > Well, no Wine here. So that won't happen. Actually, I don't have a > > > copy of windoze here at all. Neither of my two rigs have ever had > > > windoze installed on them at all. > > I'm sure some poster in 2003/04 posted in this same list about a MSWindows > malware running in Wine. That's indication of good code as far as I'm > concerned, because most MSWindows programs that I tried would fall over > themselves in Wine! LOL! > > > > > BTW, I have been known to open those attachments before. I usually open > > > them with kwrite or something and try to see what is human readable in > > > there. Most is machine language but there is usually a small portion > > > that is human readable. They sent it and I'm nosy that way. lol > > > > Perhaps it's easier to use strings? > > hexdump -C <suspect_payload> > > You may have to unzip it first, because a lot of malware is zipped to > escape > detection from some simpler anti-virus checkers. You can also use dd and > pipe > it to an antivirus to see if it finds anything known. > > All OS are susceptible to malware, but not all malware are viruses. At > least > one virus has existed for Linux (in the 90s or early 00s), but it was > patched > overnight if I remember right. Other than that I don't know of any > programs > which can be replicated on Linux machines. I think this is because despite > Lennart's efforts no two linux OS are exactly the same. So, as the virus > is > trying to replicate itself it will fall down at the next box it tries to > infect. > > However, rogue add-ons in browsers, increasingly sophisticated JavaScripts, > and HTML 5 with all its cross-domain/cross-site-request potential could > wreck > at least some of your data and steal your information, just as easily as > the > adjacent MSWindows box. Oh, before I forget, did I mention Java? > > Linux running on mobile devices is a different category because there is > great > uniformity of the OS across devices. This is a big target for any malware > writers and state actors who value their coding time: > > http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/android-security-hole/ > > -- > Regards, > Mick >
