Malware for Linux

[Michael ODonnell]

>> Those who use terms like "immune" or "virus-proof" when
>> discussing Linux do everybody a disservice since neither
>> is true.
>
>Ouch.

Ooops.  I forgot about your signature line.  ;->

> I gave careful consideration to adopting my current signature
> line, for exactly the reason of the problems of conveying an
> inference of "immune" -- when that is not, and cannot possibly
> be, the case.

Ah.  I'll probably concede any point you want to make about
the dictionary definition of "-proof" as a modifier not meaning
"perfect", but definitions and proper usage often seem to matter
less than we'd like.  (And, yes - I *could* care less!  >-/ )

The security-is-a-process-not-a-product dictum reminds us of our
burden; the "process" of security costs vigilance and resources.
So, given any problem P, calling a thing "P-proof" makes it
tempting to tick the SOLVED box and move on; vigilance wanes or
vanishes, dictionaries remain safely undisturbed on the shelf.

News-beings reporting on high profile penetrations or malware
infestations these days don't even bother to mention a specific
OS or vendor; the generic term "computer" is sufficient and,
statistically, it's likely that the reporter and most of the
audience all conjure the same image when that term is used.
It's to the point where the only reason it's newsworthy to
mention the OS in question is when it's *not* Windows or Mac.

Since it's likely (inevitable?) that compromised Linux systems
will someday be involved in sensational headlines, I'd think
it would be even more humiliating if somebody can dig up claims
that Linux is "virus-proof" or "immune" or "uncrackable" or...

FWIW, some term that conveys the "process" idea, or the notion
that "perfect-security-is-impossible-but-we're-better-than-most"
would be preferable.  I sorta like "hardened".

  --M

(Bill, I didn't mean to single you out, and if my life
 depended on cracking your machine I'd be damned sure my
 will was up to date.)