<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does Ubuntu need antivirus?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/</link>
	<description>Random musings from the radical feminist Christian antiracist left - some having to do with Ubuntu</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:52:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ray</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-25724</link>
		<dc:creator>ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-25724</guid>
		<description>People use the fly&#039;s logic...

 eat shit... millions can&#039;t be wrong....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People use the fly&#8217;s logic&#8230;</p>
<p> eat shit&#8230; millions can&#8217;t be wrong&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RJ Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-21251</link>
		<dc:creator>RJ Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 20:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-21251</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;&quot;Well, obviously I can’t stop you. You can also wear a gas mask around all the time when walking through perfectly healthy air. I won’t stop you from doing that either. But in either case, I’m not going to pretend what you’re doing makes sense.&quot;&lt;&lt;

That is probably the best analogy I have ever read describing that issue!

I have only recently begun running Ubuntu 11.04 and I honestly feel like jumping in a pool of disinfectant every time I have to use Windows on public PCs. 

How did such piss-poor, filthy, slow and futile software become so widespread? 

People just need to know that there is a better alternative to Windows I guess...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;&#8221;Well, obviously I can’t stop you. You can also wear a gas mask around all the time when walking through perfectly healthy air. I won’t stop you from doing that either. But in either case, I’m not going to pretend what you’re doing makes sense.&#8221;&lt;&lt;</p>
<p>That is probably the best analogy I have ever read describing that issue!</p>
<p>I have only recently begun running Ubuntu 11.04 and I honestly feel like jumping in a pool of disinfectant every time I have to use Windows on public PCs. </p>
<p>How did such piss-poor, filthy, slow and futile software become so widespread? </p>
<p>People just need to know that there is a better alternative to Windows I guess&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-18110</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-18110</guid>
		<description>Hullo there, was perusing your tutorial a few moments ago--particularly the portion on security. I&#039;m relatively new to Linux systems all in all, but I&#039;ve been working with Windows since all I had was Tandy 1000 that ran on DOS (thinking back my floppy drive and copies of Hangman on them seemed pretty spiffy back then). Not necessarily relevant to the following, just a bit of an introduction. 

What I actually wanted to comment on was a few simple steps that anyone can use to beef up security on their computer (running any OS). I&#039;ll outline them in a few points.

User accounts. As much as you can do your work from an account without administrative privileges. This can help you save yourself from accidentally downloading a file which may contain software that self-loads/installs. It may also allow you to remove anything remotely from the infected account without causing harm to critical software segments.

Downloads. You went into this a bit. I concur, you should never click links inside emails. One can take this a bit further. Regardless of your OS, know which file extensions indicate programs or script files. If you have any doubts about a file extension, Google doesn&#039;t.

Internet and routers. It is amazing how many layers of security you can add to your network, especially if you use a wireless connection. It is no secret that wireless signals can be found easily, but they have encryption protocols for a reason. Use them. For instance, if you use LinkSys, your router&#039;s domain is http://192.168.1.1 go there if you never have. If you&#039;ve never been there your account/password will be admin/admin or just the password admin with no account name. Regardless of your router make it will be some combination of this by default. If you can&#039;t figure how to access it, Google can. Once you get there change your router to use a secure network (which means it requires a password to log on to it). Avoid WEP if at all possible, it is antiquated and YouTube can show you how to it hack it in all of 5 minutes. Your best option is WPA or WPA2. Another layer of security you can add is pretty simple. Determine the MAC address (sometimes called the &quot;physical address&quot;) of every computer you want to use your internet. It will be a 12 digit number in hexadecimal format (should look something like this--00:2B:89:94:EC:43--not mine by the way, just a number I made up). After you know what this is for each computer on your network, return to your router&#039;s domain and modify the settings so that your router only authenticates access attempts from devices with those addresses (this helps because each MAC address is unique to each networking device/card and is assigned at the factory at which it is made). Lastly, change your router&#039;s access password (the one for the router&#039;s domain, not your internet) from the default setting. If you don&#039;t any jerk with a laptop (within range of the device) can access the website and modify your settings to his liking or worse lock you out of your own network. Just by doing these simple tasks you will have added 3 layers of extra protection.

The best thing to keep in mind is that nothing can make you 100% squeaky-clean and safe. There will always be people out there trying to do things to screw other people over. Just use common sense. I spared quite a bit of detail, but with a little how-know and a devil-may-care attitude you can do all these things. Plus, always always remember Google can teach you how to do anything. Except build a quantum particle accelerator and travel time. Or can it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hullo there, was perusing your tutorial a few moments ago&#8211;particularly the portion on security. I&#8217;m relatively new to Linux systems all in all, but I&#8217;ve been working with Windows since all I had was Tandy 1000 that ran on DOS (thinking back my floppy drive and copies of Hangman on them seemed pretty spiffy back then). Not necessarily relevant to the following, just a bit of an introduction. </p>
<p>What I actually wanted to comment on was a few simple steps that anyone can use to beef up security on their computer (running any OS). I&#8217;ll outline them in a few points.</p>
<p>User accounts. As much as you can do your work from an account without administrative privileges. This can help you save yourself from accidentally downloading a file which may contain software that self-loads/installs. It may also allow you to remove anything remotely from the infected account without causing harm to critical software segments.</p>
<p>Downloads. You went into this a bit. I concur, you should never click links inside emails. One can take this a bit further. Regardless of your OS, know which file extensions indicate programs or script files. If you have any doubts about a file extension, Google doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Internet and routers. It is amazing how many layers of security you can add to your network, especially if you use a wireless connection. It is no secret that wireless signals can be found easily, but they have encryption protocols for a reason. Use them. For instance, if you use LinkSys, your router&#8217;s domain is <a href="http://192.168.1.1" rel="nofollow">http://192.168.1.1</a> go there if you never have. If you&#8217;ve never been there your account/password will be admin/admin or just the password admin with no account name. Regardless of your router make it will be some combination of this by default. If you can&#8217;t figure how to access it, Google can. Once you get there change your router to use a secure network (which means it requires a password to log on to it). Avoid WEP if at all possible, it is antiquated and YouTube can show you how to it hack it in all of 5 minutes. Your best option is WPA or WPA2. Another layer of security you can add is pretty simple. Determine the MAC address (sometimes called the &#8220;physical address&#8221;) of every computer you want to use your internet. It will be a 12 digit number in hexadecimal format (should look something like this&#8211;00:2B:89:94:EC:43&#8211;not mine by the way, just a number I made up). After you know what this is for each computer on your network, return to your router&#8217;s domain and modify the settings so that your router only authenticates access attempts from devices with those addresses (this helps because each MAC address is unique to each networking device/card and is assigned at the factory at which it is made). Lastly, change your router&#8217;s access password (the one for the router&#8217;s domain, not your internet) from the default setting. If you don&#8217;t any jerk with a laptop (within range of the device) can access the website and modify your settings to his liking or worse lock you out of your own network. Just by doing these simple tasks you will have added 3 layers of extra protection.</p>
<p>The best thing to keep in mind is that nothing can make you 100% squeaky-clean and safe. There will always be people out there trying to do things to screw other people over. Just use common sense. I spared quite a bit of detail, but with a little how-know and a devil-may-care attitude you can do all these things. Plus, always always remember Google can teach you how to do anything. Except build a quantum particle accelerator and travel time. Or can it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lynn lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-18006</link>
		<dc:creator>lynn lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-18006</guid>
		<description>Yeah!
Anti-virus software is just a defense display software to delete virus program. Whether OS or Linux should used or not!
According to Meikel14,yeah, may be he&#039;s right. &#039;Cause hacker break only the system OS which most user accessed.They produce hacking code for most popular Operation System. That&#039;s why people say Windows is not secure than Linux, the answer is Windows has users&#039; beliefs more than Linux&#039; OS. So,as for now condition, Linux doesn&#039;t need Anti-virus software immediately. Meaning not needing for now.
May be for next several of years when users think Linux is more secure than Windows, and Hackers think most people they try to hack is using Linux than Windows, they will also produce new virus program to attack and then Linux OS will also need more useful anti-virus programs just like Windows need as now.
Good OS will ever follow by hackers...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah!<br />
Anti-virus software is just a defense display software to delete virus program. Whether OS or Linux should used or not!<br />
According to Meikel14,yeah, may be he&#8217;s right. &#8216;Cause hacker break only the system OS which most user accessed.They produce hacking code for most popular Operation System. That&#8217;s why people say Windows is not secure than Linux, the answer is Windows has users&#8217; beliefs more than Linux&#8217; OS. So,as for now condition, Linux doesn&#8217;t need Anti-virus software immediately. Meaning not needing for now.<br />
May be for next several of years when users think Linux is more secure than Windows, and Hackers think most people they try to hack is using Linux than Windows, they will also produce new virus program to attack and then Linux OS will also need more useful anti-virus programs just like Windows need as now.<br />
Good OS will ever follow by hackers&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-6619</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-6619</guid>
		<description>Those advocating the theory that Linux is only more secure because of it&#039;s low market share (Peter, meikel14) should do some more research. Simply not true.
The Unix security model *does* make a huge difference as compared to Windows. As the author says, nothing will make people safe if they behave stupidly and install recklessly, but at least Linux *allows* a user to behave safely.
Security by obscurity does not work! Source code makes a system much more secure. The black box DLL model that Windows runs under for profiteering reasons is also bad engineering for security and performance. Local compiles are a better way.(But then source code gets distributed...not good for profits!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those advocating the theory that Linux is only more secure because of it&#8217;s low market share (Peter, meikel14) should do some more research. Simply not true.<br />
The Unix security model *does* make a huge difference as compared to Windows. As the author says, nothing will make people safe if they behave stupidly and install recklessly, but at least Linux *allows* a user to behave safely.<br />
Security by obscurity does not work! Source code makes a system much more secure. The black box DLL model that Windows runs under for profiteering reasons is also bad engineering for security and performance. Local compiles are a better way.(But then source code gets distributed&#8230;not good for profits!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-6222</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-6222</guid>
		<description>Antivirus is not the &quot;locks on the doors&quot;; it&#039;s the alarm system that *might* go off after you&#039;ve already been compromised...

A malicious user may have access to Linux source code, but he will NOT have the ability to inject malware into future Linux releases to be exploited.

And should anyone be worried that a malicious user has the ability to scan the source code looking for vulnerabilities?  No...  Millions of other eyeballs have preceded him doing the very same thing -- and removing the vulnerabilities as they find them.

This sort of scrutiny &amp; vetting does NOT happen with closed-source operating systems.  (When&#039;s the last time you successfully submitted a bug report to Microsoft for &quot;leaving the doors open&quot; in Windows?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Antivirus is not the &#8220;locks on the doors&#8221;; it&#8217;s the alarm system that *might* go off after you&#8217;ve already been compromised&#8230;</p>
<p>A malicious user may have access to Linux source code, but he will NOT have the ability to inject malware into future Linux releases to be exploited.</p>
<p>And should anyone be worried that a malicious user has the ability to scan the source code looking for vulnerabilities?  No&#8230;  Millions of other eyeballs have preceded him doing the very same thing &#8212; and removing the vulnerabilities as they find them.</p>
<p>This sort of scrutiny &amp; vetting does NOT happen with closed-source operating systems.  (When&#8217;s the last time you successfully submitted a bug report to Microsoft for &#8220;leaving the doors open&#8221; in Windows?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ubuntucat</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-6221</link>
		<dc:creator>ubuntucat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-6221</guid>
		<description>It &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; foolish to think Linux will always be the safest route. Good thing I never said that.

The post, if you read it, is about whether you should run antivirus or not.

And the bottom line is that whether there are real security threats or not, running antivirus does not protect you. Antivirus is useless.

As for source code availability making it easier for malicious folks to compromise a system, that sounds right in theory, but in practice, we know this not to be true. If it were true, closed source operating systems and applications would almost never be compromised... and they almost always are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It <i>is</i> foolish to think Linux will always be the safest route. Good thing I never said that.</p>
<p>The post, if you read it, is about whether you should run antivirus or not.</p>
<p>And the bottom line is that whether there are real security threats or not, running antivirus does not protect you. Antivirus is useless.</p>
<p>As for source code availability making it easier for malicious folks to compromise a system, that sounds right in theory, but in practice, we know this not to be true. If it were true, closed source operating systems and applications would almost never be compromised&#8230; and they almost always are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-6220</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-6220</guid>
		<description>meikel14 is absolutely right. It is foolish to think that Linux would always be the safest route. While I agree that it is now, and am very impressed by its open-source philosophy, it is true that the free source code would prove to be a spectacular tool for the malicious user. However, I still find it unlikely that Linux will ever get quite that popular, so for now I&#039;m comfortable sitting here with my safe OS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>meikel14 is absolutely right. It is foolish to think that Linux would always be the safest route. While I agree that it is now, and am very impressed by its open-source philosophy, it is true that the free source code would prove to be a spectacular tool for the malicious user. However, I still find it unlikely that Linux will ever get quite that popular, so for now I&#8217;m comfortable sitting here with my safe OS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-5137</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-5137</guid>
		<description>Linux in general rocks. I remember when I first installed Ubuntu I went to http://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2 to test how secure the distro was, And was amazed to see every port was register as &quot;stealth&quot;. In comparison with Vista, half the ports where either &quot;open&quot; or &quot;close&quot;. But I agree with what the author mention, Is basically up the user that determines the security of his OS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Linux in general rocks. I remember when I first installed Ubuntu I went to <a href="http://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2" rel="nofollow">http://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2</a> to test how secure the distro was, And was amazed to see every port was register as &#8220;stealth&#8221;. In comparison with Vista, half the ports where either &#8220;open&#8221; or &#8220;close&#8221;. But I agree with what the author mention, Is basically up the user that determines the security of his OS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Salman, Khwaja</title>
		<link>http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/does-ubuntu-need-antivirus/comment-page-1/#comment-3538</link>
		<dc:creator>Salman, Khwaja</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/?p=339#comment-3538</guid>
		<description>I would agree to what the writer documented in this article. Yeah. The only way to secure Windows system is to use Firewall and use non-Microsoft Products, Like FireFox, thunderbird. Still, I love saying this. &quot;UBUNTU ROCKS&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree to what the writer documented in this article. Yeah. The only way to secure Windows system is to use Firewall and use non-Microsoft Products, Like FireFox, thunderbird. Still, I love saying this. &#8220;UBUNTU ROCKS&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

