I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if
you believe malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable
applications on it that I just can't replace without anti-virus
software deleting them. I do nothing important on this computer such
as money activities and storing important passwords, but I need to
keep it running as a daily workhorse.
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually
cleans the files instead of just deleting them.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 -0000 (UTC)
jon <jon@nospam.cn> wrote:
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if
you believe malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable
applications on it that I just can't replace without anti-virus
software deleting them. I do nothing important on this computer such
as money activities and storing important passwords, but I need to
keep it running as a daily workhorse.
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually
cleans the files instead of just deleting them.
This reminds me of the saying: "One man's freedom fighter is another
man's terrorist".
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to general activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if you believe malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable applications on it that
I just can't replace without anti-virus software deleting them.
I do
nothing important on this computer such as money activities and storing important passwords, but I need to keep it running as a daily workhorse.
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually cleans
the files instead of just deleting them.
On 11/12/2023 09:58, jon wrote:
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to general
activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if you believe
malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable applications on it
that
I just can't replace without anti-virus software deleting them.
So create exceptions in the AV software to tell it that you are aware of
the potential risk, but would like to accept it.
Have you checked what software it is complaining about and why?
You also need to distinguish between classes of malware. Many system
level utility programs may be classed as Potentially Unwanted Programs -
but it all depends on context.
Say your AV platform warns you about a potential hacking application
like an encrypted password recovery tool. It might be because you
downloaded MailPass from Nirsoft to recover your forgotten password from outlook. Or it might be that you have remote access trojan installed
that you did not know about, and the bot herder driving it has decided
to do a full scan of your PC to recover any passwords and account
details it can find.
How you feel about the associated risk may very significantly - so don't shoot the messenger.
I do
nothing important on this computer such as money activities and storing
important passwords, but I need to keep it running as a daily workhorse.
Does it need to be connected to the internet? If not, keep it "air gapped".
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually cleans
the files instead of just deleting them.
Yeah right... think about that for a moment! How does it repair an
altered file back to its initial state? Using an infinite database of
every version of every executable from every manufacturer?
On 11-Dec-23 15:48, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/12/2023 09:58, jon wrote:
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general
activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if you
believe
malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable applications on it
that
I just can't replace without anti-virus software deleting them.
So create exceptions in the AV software to tell it that you are aware
of the potential risk, but would like to accept it.
Have you checked what software it is complaining about and why?
You also need to distinguish between classes of malware. Many system
level utility programs may be classed as Potentially Unwanted Programs
- but it all depends on context.
Say your AV platform warns you about a potential hacking application
like an encrypted password recovery tool. It might be because you
downloaded MailPass from Nirsoft to recover your forgotten password
from outlook. Or it might be that you have remote access trojan
installed that you did not know about, and the bot herder driving it
has decided to do a full scan of your PC to recover any passwords and
account details it can find.
How you feel about the associated risk may very significantly - so
don't shoot the messenger.
I do
nothing important on this computer such as money activities and storing
important passwords, but I need to keep it running as a daily workhorse.
Does it need to be connected to the internet? If not, keep it "air
gapped".
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually cleans
the files instead of just deleting them.
Yeah right... think about that for a moment! How does it repair an
altered file back to its initial state? Using an infinite database of
every version of every executable from every manufacturer?
I have occasionally had an anti-virus scan which picked up a new
high-profile virus/trojan horse.
The files it points at are tucked away on an 'archive' HDD, approx 10
years old, and haven't been run in nearly as long.
Hmm.
I do
nothing important on this computer such as money activities and storing
important passwords, but I need to keep it running as a daily workhorse.
Does it need to be connected to the internet? If not, keep it "air gapped".
On 11/12/2023 19:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 11-Dec-23 15:48, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/12/2023 09:58, jon wrote:
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities. I have one computer that is absolutely rotten, if
you believe malwarebytes, but it has a number of indispensable
applications on it that I just can't replace without anti-virus
software deleting them.
So create exceptions in the AV software to tell it that you are aware
of the potential risk, but would like to accept it.
Have you checked what software it is complaining about and why?
You also need to distinguish between classes of malware. Many system
level utility programs may be classed as Potentially Unwanted Programs
- but it all depends on context.
Say your AV platform warns you about a potential hacking application
like an encrypted password recovery tool. It might be because you
downloaded MailPass from Nirsoft to recover your forgotten password
from outlook. Or it might be that you have remote access trojan
installed that you did not know about, and the bot herder driving it
has decided to do a full scan of your PC to recover any passwords and
account details it can find.
How you feel about the associated risk may very significantly - so
don't shoot the messenger.
I do nothing important on this computer such as money activities and
storing important passwords, but I need to keep it running as a daily
workhorse.
Does it need to be connected to the internet? If not, keep it "air
gapped".
A good anti malware application would be a program that actually
cleans the files instead of just deleting them.
Yeah right... think about that for a moment! How does it repair an
altered file back to its initial state? Using an infinite database of
every version of every executable from every manufacturer?
I have occasionally had an anti-virus scan which picked up a new
high-profile virus/trojan horse.
The files it points at are tucked away on an 'archive' HDD, approx 10
years old, and haven't been run in nearly as long.
Hmm.
Yup false positives are a problem with all AV tools.
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect attachments
and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux in the last 20
years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for Linux.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are
there yet.
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are there
yet.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:58:21 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and
understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
A lot of Windows users run with admin privileges, which saves them
time and allows malware to be installed on their machines. Apart from
some Ubuntu users, most Linux users have more sense.
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are
there yet.
I did say *some*.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:58:21 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and
understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
A lot of Windows users run with admin privileges, which saves them
time and allows malware to be installed on their machines. Apart from
some Ubuntu users, most Linux users have more sense.
But if there
was money involved in tipping over Linux users, we would get a real measure of the holes.
On 12/12/2023 21:50, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:58:21 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and
understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
A lot of Windows users run with admin privileges, which saves them
time and allows malware to be installed on their machines. Apart from
some Ubuntu users, most Linux users have more sense.
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are
there yet.
I did say *some*.
Not running as root but having a simple and defined method to raise user priviliges is a decent compromise, which is why it is the linux default.
On 12/12/2023 19:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are there
yet.
Odd hardware?
On 12/12/2023 9:40 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 21:50, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:58:21 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to >>>>>>> general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and
understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
A lot of Windows users run with admin privileges, which saves them
time and allows malware to be installed on their machines. Apart from
some Ubuntu users, most Linux users have more sense.
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are
there yet.
I did say *some*.
Not running as root but having a simple and defined method to raise user priviliges is a decent compromise, which is why it is the linux default.
Isn't there one though, that doesn't do that ?
Maybe Debian ? No sudoers set up ? When that happens,
you get to learn how to set up sudoers (like you would
in the old days).
And there is one distro, with a red Terminal icon on the
taskbar, and you run as root. Which is fine, as long as you
know enough about 'nix to recognize the flora and fauna.
That's a distro intended only for live usage, and not
really intended for hard drive install.
And the Wifi modules, like some new RealTek one, they eventually get
drivers. It all depends on how cooperative the hardware company
is, to how quickly that gets resolved. People who reverse-engineer,
they need samples of hardware, to do their best work.
Some hardware has "too many" drivers, and the secret to
end-user bring-up is blacklisting the drivers that don't belong.
Only certain people have big enough brain-pans to memorize
all these quirk-cases. If I were to expect trouble, maybe it
would be a Broadcom.
Whereas Atheros, used to have a good reputation in the Linux
community. And they have been acquired by Qualcomm (the Borg).
Luckily in this case the bug manifests itself by the wifi adapter being incapable of getting an IP address - and in my case we are using fixed
IPs. But it would have made it useless for general use.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:58:21 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:07:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 07:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:58:30 +0000, jon wrote:+10001
I wonder sometimes just how critical some of these viruses are to
general activities.
Running linux can relieve of some of that thought.
I am fairly certain I have been emailed at least 200 suspect
attachments and downloaded many hundreds of suspect items on Linux
in the last 20 years.
I have never had an issue.
I run no virus scanners. I don't know whether there are any, for
Linux.
clamav ?
Although that is mainly used where I am to scan attachments to and
from *Windows* PCs.
Some people think it's a weight of numbers issue. If 90% of the world
ran linux desktops, then maybe they'd be as vulnerable.
For myself, I think it's more fundamental than that. Linux was built
from the ground up (like *nix) with a damn good model of security and
understanding that the user at the console is more likely than not,
*not* an admin.
A lot of Windows users run with admin privileges, which saves them
time and allows malware to be installed on their machines. Apart from
some Ubuntu users, most Linux users have more sense.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 02:37:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 19:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are there
yet.
Odd hardware?
Well not so odd that Windows - for all it's flaws - has zero problems
with it.
Luckily in this case the bug manifests itself by the wifi adapter being incapable of getting an IP address - and in my case we are using fixed
IPs. But it would have made it useless for general use.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 02:37:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/2023 19:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are there
yet.
Odd hardware?
Well not so odd that Windows - for all it's flaws - has zero problems
with it.
Luckily in this case the bug manifests itself by the wifi adapter being incapable of getting an IP address - and in my case we are using fixed
IPs. But it would have made it useless for general use.
On 13/12/2023 07:27, Jethro_uk wrote:
Luckily in this case the bug manifests itself by the wifi adapter being
incapable of getting an IP address - and in my case we are using fixed
IPs. But it would have made it useless for general use.
Ahah. I cane across that recently in my Pi.
It was an obscure default in systemd that wants to rename the wireless interface to something obscure, which then isnt recognised by other parts of the system, namely the DHCP client side.
look here
/lib/systemd/network/ and you may see some files
tell me what's there and what is in them, and how the wifi is connected - is it usb?
On 12/13/2023 7:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/12/2023 07:27, Jethro_uk wrote:
Luckily in this case the bug manifests itself by the wifi adapter being
incapable of getting an IP address - and in my case we are using fixed
IPs. But it would have made it useless for general use.
Ahah. I cane across that recently in my Pi.
It was an obscure default in systemd that wants to rename the wireless interface to something obscure, which then isnt recognised by other parts of the system, namely the DHCP client side.
look here
/lib/systemd/network/ and you may see some files
tell me what's there and what is in them, and how the wifi is connected - is it usb?
You can install the package for ifconfig, if you want
to get back the traditional convenience.
It listed my Wifi as a systemd string with about 20 characters
in it. When the articles on the web might refer to a Wifi as "wlan0".
Paul
However having just wasted half a day with a ****ing wifi issue with
Jammy Jellyfish that may not ever be fixed, I don't think we are there
yet.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 63:14:27 |
| Calls: | 6,690 |
| Files: | 12,226 |
| Messages: | 5,345,588 |