Linux

Ask something
Discussion Locked

How safe is Linux really?

0 helpful
4 replies

by jaqui

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Catchy title huh? It's the major subject in this months issue of Linux Magazine.

The online version of the issue is available:

http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/62

The First section of this subject deals with Viruses ( sic- it should be virii by the rules of the English language )

Tomasz Kojm puts forth a "Theoretical Linux Virus" and explains clearly why virii are limited in the potential for damage with a Unix[like] operating system. [ 3 A4 pages in the magazine ]

The next section is Virus Checkers [ Scanners ] by James Mohr.
He evaluates the performance of those anti virus tools that had a downloadable version. [ 8 in total ]
He then scanned a single folder, with 69 files in it, that were all infected with some windows virus. and rates the scanners on how many they found. [ 6 A4 pages ]

Then Robert Hogan review KlamAV, the KDE gui user tool version of clamav. [ 3 A4 pages ]

after that review is a second review [ Scan Manager ], this on the new product Amasvid.
Amasvid is an email server integrated tool to stop both viruese and spam. It even integrates with your sql server to store the rules for lookups for the spam functions. [ 3 A4 pages ]

So a total of 15 A4 pages out of 98 A4 pages devoted to just this one subject, virus protection for Linux.

don't feel like reading the pdf's they put on the website? $9.99 USD at local newstands $12.95 in Canada [ Chapters / Indigo carries the magazine ]

I would recommend getting the hard copy, it includes a cover dvd with full commercial Suse 10.0 on it.

4 replies

by jaqui

Another section of the magazine.
with descriptions of exploitable holes in:
openssl
unzip*
wget
and
RUBY**

* note, this tools is used in the "theoretical" virus example

** just to poke apotheon, since a bigger ruby advocate here wouldn't be easy to find.

by apotheon

Okay, you found me.

I've actually backed off from Ruby a bit lately -- I have to focus some more attention on other things for a while. The fact of the matter is that, as great as Ruby is for some things, I find myself needing Perl more. Ruby's a hobby (and a highly enjoyable one) for me at this point, while Perl is a necessity (and a minor obsession).

In any case . . . antivirus is becoming an ever-more important part of running a Linux system so that one doesn't become an "immune carrier" for Windows viruses.

Oh, and it is indeed viruses. While the rules of the English language would indicate it should be virii, "virus" is one of those words that is an exception to the rule, just as "goose" becomes "geese" while "moose" becomes "moose", and "mouse" becomes "mice" while "house" becomes "houses". We certainly don't have "meese" and "hice", just as we don't have "virii", as much as it might seem like we should.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/81/V0118100.html
(from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, quite possibly the most precise dictionary of the English language in existence)

by bob g beechey

Making the plural of word ending in -us end i -i is a [b]Latin[/b] not an English rule and only applies to words that are first declension Latin masculine. This would make the plural of virus [u]viri[/u]. Where on earth did the non-word virii come from?
As virus is NOT first-declension masculine and Latin, the correct plural is viruses.
Some feminine words from Latin end in in -a and have a plural ending in -ae as in formula-formulae.
Some neuter words ending in -um have a plural in -a as in forum-fora.
However, I would suggest even old Latin words in English are now becoming regularised so that I now tend (slightly reluctantly) to say "formulas" instead of "formulae" and "forums" instead of "fora".

by apotheon

I tend to alternate between "forums" and "fora".

Anyhow, thanks for the Latin perspective, and the correction. You're right, of course -- the Latin pluralization would be viri, not virii. Chalk that up to a brain fart on my part.

When I said "English" rules, I essentially meant grammatical rules adopted along with the word from another language. Poor phrasing on my part.

This discussion is closed to new replies.