[UCLA-LUG] I Love You virus

[Matt Helsley]

On Sat, 6 May 2000, David Braginsky wrote:
> > I feel that linux is ONE correct choice. MacOS is the another. While macs
> > may be suceptible to SOME winblows virii, this is only because they can
> > run M$ software. Funny how M$ propagates more virii than any other 'easy
> > to use' OS.
> >
> > 	Be OS is another good choice- it's got a stable UI, POSIX layer,
> > and a NICE API (think JDK, but cleaner, and in C++).
> >
> 
> 	I would think the amount of viruses for an OS can be better correlated to
> the user base, not the quality of the api. Sure MacOs has less virii, but
> also less users. The same stands for Linux and Be.
Hmm, someone seems a little touchy on this subject! :)

I don't think that user base is as large of a factor as you might think.
Microsoft has never had security in mind when it started any OS. And its
"fixes" for problems that do crop up are relatively poor. They have their
programmers do what Campbell does - work AROUND the problem, don't spend
the time needed to fix it. 
	Linux, being open to peer review, allows for the integration of
elegant solutions. This is because it has a wider DEVELOPER base for the
core operating system - making bugs transparent and thus eliminating
potential security risks.
	Also, Windows is more susceptible due to its proliferation of
dumbass mail clients (cough outlook... I mean "look out!"). Any mail agent
that AUTOMATICALLY runs untrusted code in a sensitive environment is DUMB
(just like VB). And YES, I have coded in VB...
	MS is a feature whore... :?)

> > There is only ONE problem with virii alerts- I get more virii alerts than
> > I do virii!!! :?)
> 
> Would you rather have more virii than alerts? I would prefere neither.
My complaint does not imply that I want more of either- only that the
alerts themselves have generated more traffic than the virus. This akin to
sending an ICMP packet when another ICMP packet gets dropped (at least in
my book).

L8r.