[conspire] linux antivirus?

Ryan Russell ryan at thievco.com
Thu Sep 11 20:54:58 PDT 2003

Well, I'll give it a shot with your new rules, though my expectations at 
this point are not high.

Rick Moen wrote:
> 1.  They are not in the wild.

I have evidence to the contrary.  You don't have to believe it, obviously. 
  I might submit that it's considerably more reasonable for me to point to 
some affirmative cases than it is for one to claim that the entire set of 
Linux users "in the wild" have had exactly 0 infections.

> 2.  They are not successful.

You can choose a number to define "success", I've only got evidence of a 
few dozen, so I've no way to meet your criteria.

> 3.  And there's also that verbosity problem.

Fair enough.  I was kinda suggesting that those might be better examples 
than others.

<snip how to keep yourself from being infected>

You continue to post ways for smart people to protect themsselves, while I 
continue to ask if you don't really think stupid people will fall for it. 
Highly unproductive.

>>So what about that makes them not worms that spread between hosts?
> 1.  On a statistical basis, they don't, and never did.  I analyse my
> Linux Internet server logfiles on an ongoing basis, and have for the
> past ten years.  Ramen, 1i0n, Red Worm, Adore, Cheese, lpdw0rm, and
> Slapper, even a month after release in each case, were almost completely
> unfindable.  (A harmless curiosity, too, but that's not the point.)

Meaning they didn't spread "enough" to...

> So they do not "take over (infect) the local machine" in the sense you
> quoted from my essay.  They act remotely.  

Ah.  So when a worm is running on the box, using CPU, network, memory, 
etc... you don't want to use the work "infected".  Fair enough.

> You stated that this is a counterexample to what you quoted from my
> essay.  No, it is not.

If you don't want to call that "infected", then no it's not.

>>If I thought you had explained it there to my satisfaction, I wouldn't have
>>asked. :)
> Whoops!
> I'm sorry, but this conversation will rapidly come to an end, after
> this.  You've just said the magic words:  You've stated that you don't
> understand something I've FAQed, and want to argue about it.  Sorry,
> that signals the end of the conversation.  Right about here:

I was trying to be polite.  I was trying to be nice, and not come out and 
say "I think you're wrong, and I'm going to challenge you on it, and cite 
specific information about which I have personal knowledge, and see if 
you're willing to tell me what leads you to the conclusions you seem to 
offer as fact."  I thought it would be rude of me as a newbie on the list 
to be so bluntly confrontational, and of course I blew it, and ended up 
there anyway.  I'm at fault for not just laying it out there, and leading 
you to believe that I'm not capable of reading or comprehending what you've 

> OK, son, let's cut the crap.  I'm short of time, and you -- Mr.
> Runs-Everything-With-Root-Authority-And-Talks-About-Viruses-In-Zero-
> Day-Sploits -- are wasting it.  

Ouch.  Response to the tone below.

> No reasonable person would call the bullshit you posted following that
> "autorunning".

Then the Windows MUAs don't autorun anything, either.

>>So... you think that users get smarter when they switch to Linux?
> I have a better question:  Are you going to try to understand what I
> actually wrote?

Sorry... was a latch ditch effort to tease out information from you when 
you had apparantly reached the point where you wanted to pretend that words 
don't mean what the rest of us think they do.  Again, my bad for remaining 
sickly polite.

> And so on.  Sorry, I have no time for this crap, and am shitcanning it.
> And you've just pissed me off to the point that I am going to don my hat
> as listadmin for a moment:  "Blue Boar", you're going to have to
> resubscribe with something that appears to be a real name.  And no, I'm
> fscking well not going to define what a real name is, nor am I imposing
> this as an overall list policy.  This is just for you.  Enjo, nor am I
> imposing this as an overall list policy.  This is just for you.  Enjoy!

Wow.  OK, as someone who is often unwilling to take a hint, this is plenty 
clear, thanks.  I can sometimes be stubborn, and should have realized that 
I ought to have given up on a conversation with you on this subject a few 
notes ago.  I'll finish with this note, shall I?  Thanks for taking the 
time that you did to answer my questions about your opinions on the 
subject, which believe it or not were sincere.  I took it up with you 
because you're the one making the statements, and you were the only one 
replying.  Sadly, I still don't see exactly how you arrive at your 
opinions.  The conclusions are certainly clear, I was after the steps 
leading up to them.

As requested, here's a different email address.  This one happens to be my 
legal name.  Blue Boar is not any sort of attempt to hide my identity, 
plenty of people know who it is... it's simply been my default mail address 
for a number of years.

Since we've reached the "your name is funny lookin; I'm going to take my 
list and go home" stage, I shall return to lurking, if permitted.  Again, 
I'm sorry to have wasted your time, monopolized the list for the day, and 
to have been so rude as to repeatedly disagree with my host on his own 
list.  I really had no intention of coming across as a troll.


More information about the conspire mailing list