 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / SETI / July 2004McAfee vs SETI@home version 3.08
Open question to anyone in the group. A few days ago I downloaded McAfee to set up a firewall. Once it was installed the SETI@Home program slowed to a snails pace. I turned McAfee off and the program was still slow so I uninstalled the McAfee and now SETI is running fine. Has anyone else experienced this and if you have is there a workaround? Jeff Hetzel Superior minds discuss ideas Average minds discuss events Small minds discuss people Adm. Hyman Rickover > Open question to anyone in the group. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Adm. Hyman Rickover Jeff, What Version on Mcafee are you using? I've heard similiar complaints about Mcafee 7.0 clashing with SETI@Home 3.08. I've Run Mcafee 6.0 with both Seti@Home versions 3.03 and 3.08 for a couple years now without any problems or clashes. I suspect that Mcafee 7.0 and SETI are sharing the same port, and causing said clash. Perhaps setting up a cacheing program and thus forcing SETI to use a port of your choice will fix this issue. But I'm just reaching here. Hopely someone else on this forum will have a little more expertise. Good Luck SC > Jeff, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > SC i'v run mcafee 7 for ages no problems here and sharing the same port ? errrrr no :) "I suspect that Mcafee 7.0 and SETI are sharing the same port, and causing said clash" eh?  SignatureBOINC Team - http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=112938 > > Open question to anyone in the group. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Good Luck I have been running Seti 3.08 on a Windows 98 machine for years. Last week I installed broadband and yesterday I installed McAfee Firewall Plus 5.0.5.7 (broadband suppliers suggested I need a firewall and I am already using McAfee VirusScan and Spamkiller) The effect was to slow Seti to a crawl. Does anybody know if this can be cured by switching to BOINC? SignatureHenry Goodman henry dot goodman at virgin dot net Are you sure you didn't get zombieized between the time you installed broadband and the time you installed your firewall? It only takes a few unprotected seconds. Check your connection and see if there's a lot of suspicious up and down traffic. >>>Open question to anyone in the group. >>> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > The effect was to slow Seti to a crawl. > Does anybody know if this can be cured by switching to BOINC? Well there were 4 days between installing broadband and installing the firewall (though I did disconnect overnight) and Seti was fine during that period (I was impressed by how fast it now downloads WUs). I assume my problem is the same as the previous poster (JeffHetzel). I don't see any unaccounted for traffic on the broadband link. Seti equally slow when broadband disconnected. SignatureHenry Goodman henry dot goodman at virgin dot net > Are you sure you didn't get zombieized between the time you installed > broadband and the time you installed your firewall? It only takes a few [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > The effect was to slow Seti to a crawl. > > Does anybody know if this can be cured by switching to BOINC? >I have been running Seti 3.08 on a Windows 98 machine for years. Last >week I installed broadband and yesterday I installed McAfee Firewall >Plus 5.0.5.7 (broadband suppliers suggested I need a firewall and I am >already using McAfee VirusScan and Spamkiller) >The effect was to slow Seti to a crawl. >Does anybody know if this can be cured by switching to BOINC? I would think that your Firewall needs to be setup to stop checking Seti everytime it tries to do something. My Seti slowed when I first installed Norton anti-virus and stayed slow until I excluded that directory from its checking. I am now back up to full speed. Your Mcafee could be having the same problems. > I have been running Seti 3.08 on a Windows 98 machine for years. Last > week I installed broadband and yesterday I installed McAfee Firewall > Plus 5.0.5.7 (broadband suppliers suggested I need a firewall and I am > already using McAfee VirusScan and Spamkiller) > The effect was to slow Seti to a crawl. > Does anybody know if this can be cured by switching to BOINC? Please tell me you're not using a USB modem?! Such things use a lot of system resources, as do software firewalls. You'd be much better off buying a router. Such things have built-in ADSL modems and a hardware firewall. Such a device would use drain zero CPU power, and would offer hugely better protection. > > I have been running Seti 3.08 on a Windows 98 machine for years. Last > > week I installed broadband and yesterday I installed McAfee Firewall [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > firewall. Such a device would use drain zero CPU power, and would offer > hugely better protection. Well, yes, I am using a USB modem (Speedtouch) as provided by my ISP. Incidentally I rebooted a couple of hours ago and let Seti run without connecting to the internet and it seems to be going faster; we'll see what happens now I have connected. I rebooted because Windows was refusing to run tasks because of insufficient memory. I have 256Mb and have not had that problem since I enhanced it from 64Mb. Could be a memory problem with McAfee rather than CPU cycles? SignatureHenry Goodman henry dot goodman at virgin dot net > > > I have been running Seti 3.08 on a Windows 98 machine for years. > Last [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > have not had that problem since I enhanced it from 64Mb. Could be a > memory problem with McAfee rather than CPU cycles? Yes it seems Ok now so maybe not the same prroblem as other posters? SignatureHenry Goodman henry dot goodman at virgin dot net Jeff wrote... > Once it was installed, the SETI@Home program slowed to a snails pace. I don't remember what happened to my SETI, especially. Almost a couple of years ago, I was running a nice Dell Dimension XPS T450 450 MHz PIII with Windoze 98se and 384 MB ram. It was going slower and slower, until it suddenly got real bad. Finally un-installed McAfee, and the whole computer started running like new. (It's a good feeling, isn't it?) Reinstalled, uninstalled, McAfee and proved they were the problem. At that point, I switched to Grisoft AVG [antivirus], and everything was fine, once again. Plus, AVG is free. ( http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php ) The biggest problem was that no matter how hard I begged or threatened, I could not get McAfee to cancel my subscription and refund the difference. I think I had the 2nd half of a two-year subscription remaining, and they claimed to only have a "30 day (+/-) refund policy." No amount of logic would sway them from refunding in the case where their software had gotten so bloated halfway through a 2-year subscription that the computer wouldn't work anymore. I had a lot of emails going back and forth to them (in India, I presume), but to no avail. Who you gonna call? However, they asked that if I decide not to use their service anymore, would I please keep them informed about my decision. Creeps. I asked them a few times to remove my credit card number from their system, or else I'd sue their a.ses off. Later that year, I got an auto-email that if I don't speak up, they're going to auto-renew my subscription. Creeps. At the moment, I'm getting a free year of antivirus service from Computer Associates (not to be confused with Network Ass-ociates). See http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/. Their user interface is so bad, I have no plans to subscribe after my free year ends. But their engine and updates are supposed to be real good. Certainly they update faster and more often than AVG, if that proves anything. If I try to open a virus attachment in an email, the computer switches to 640x480 DOS, and asks me, "Do you really want to open this VIRUS??" or something like that. Also, Grisoft AVG isn't certified for Win98 ( http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/notes/tr0604.shtml ), so it's nice to get away from them for a year. Lots of computer-security forums to get advice on what to do when my e-Trust runs out. Maybe after my free year ends, I'll "pay" for a well-rated antivirus. Naaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Best luck, -Neil- > Jeff wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Best luck, > -Neil- I know alot of people who have had nothing but problems with Mcafee, but personally I've never had any issue with them. I've used them exclusively on several computers across three operating systems (although I do admit their firewall is garbage). I have yet to upgrade to the new 7.0 or 8.0, from the reports so far 7.0 seems to clash hard with SETI 3.08, which I suspect as I mention in an above post, being the result of a shared port between the two programs. Perhaps using a cacheing agent or switching to the previous SETI 3.03 build may resolve this issue. It would be nice to get the input of a SETI@Home staffer or Networks Associates staffer on this and what they believe to be the problem is and what the possible resolution may be. The science and potential gains from taking part in SETI cetainly justify someone working to resolve this issue. Just my thoughts, SC > It would be nice to get the input of a SETI@Home staffer or Networks > Associates staffer on this and what they believe to be the problem is and > what the possible resolution may be. The resolution is do not use McAfee. I've had enough problems with them to know I'd never willingly run any program they have. You say you wanted it for the firewall? Why are you attempting to run a firewall on the PC you are protecting? Go get yourself a router with a built-in firewall for well under $100 or configure an old PC to run a Linux based firewall. Running a firewall on the same PC you are attempting to protect is a waste of time and cpu cycles. > > It would be nice to get the input of a SETI@Home staffer or Networks > > Associates staffer on this and what they believe to be the problem is and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Running a firewall on the same PC you are attempting to protect is a > waste of time and cpu cycles. I agree in Spades. And Ditto for Zone Alarm. And XP's native FW, too. All garbage, IMO. Get a router or set up a Sacrificial Lamb, or a DMZ if you're hosting. If you're doing PPPo/e using WinXp or some s/w utility like Enternet, a router will do hardware implemented PPPo/e translations, which will result in much faster DNS resolution and browsing. SignatureStrat Dear Stratcat, You wrote: > ... Sacrificial Lamb... Googling... Interesting article at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_8_22/ai_101656377 Honeypots. Learn something new every day. Thanks, -Neil- > Dear Stratcat, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > -Neil- Worth reading. Regrds > Googling... Interesting article at > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_8_22/ai_101656377 > Honeypots. Learn something new every day. I'm running a honeypot on an otherwise unused P100 w/windoze 98se. http://66.68.132.34:7070/html/hosts.html is my log. Feel free to submit my honeypot IP to any lists of open relays you know of. The vast majority of my traffic appears to be a zombie network in Taiwan. I've trapped over 42,000 spams with it since May. Jackpot is the honeypot software I'm using. Very simple to configure and run. Anyone with a broadband connection can do it. http://jackpot.uk.net/ Dear usenet, You wrote... > > Googling... Interesting article at > > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_8_22/ai_101656377 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > run. Anyone with a broadband connection can do it. > http://jackpot.uk.net/ Really, this is all news to me. Amazing. Saw your log. (That was me at sixty-nine.one-sixty-two.eighteen.one-thirty-one, at about 9:45 PM EST.) Nothing but Taiwan attacking your computer. What's the sociology behind that? It looks like you're only processing spams. What about port probes? Guess I should go to Jackpot and find out how to interpret your log. The closest I can come to that is manually relaying spams to SpamCop, which I do religiously. Also, I'm running myNetWatchman (mNW), which monitors my Firewall log, and relays any firewall log entries to a central database which calls the Internet Police on the worst port-probing offenders. At least, mNW is fully automatic. The little white icon in the toolbar twinkles green while it's relaying IP information about any offending port-prober. I'm sure I've contributed lots by keeping my computer running and reporting, while crunching a few work units on the side. I like your way better. It's completely automatic. Even processes spam automatically. What will those Brits think of next? Thanks again, -Neil- >> usenet wrote: >>I'm running a honeypot on an otherwise unused P100 w/windoze 98se. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nothing but Taiwan attacking your computer. What's the sociology behind > that? I'd have to look again to be sure, but I don't think it SAVES anything but the captured spams. All activity will show up in the dos window but unless I happen to be looking at it at the time I probably won't see you. My best guess about the Taiwan traffic is a taiwan spammer is using the open relay list that has me on it. It is probably now included in the list of usable relays by thousands of zombie computers (compromised by a trojan.) > It looks like you're only processing spams. What about port probes? Guess > I should go to Jackpot and find out how to interpret your log. I don't keep track of port probes on that machine. My firewall can do it but since the only ports that are open are ports I want open I'm not too concerned about the others. I'm not even sure I've got the firewall keeping a log. > The closest I can come to that is manually relaying spams to SpamCop, which > I do religiously. Also, I'm running myNetWatchman (mNW), which monitors my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I like your way better. It's completely automatic. Even processes spam > automatically. What will those Brits think of next? The only thing that happens to the spam is it gets stored on my computer. I can manually complain but I don't bother with the zombie traffic. I've notified a couple admins about their unsecure boxes but it is rare that I get any that I can help with. Mr. Usenet wrote... > Running a firewall on the same PC you are attempting to protect is a waste of time and cpu cycles. Interesting point about the CPU cycles. According to my TaskInfo2003, my ZoneAlarm Free (the most wonderful firewall in the universe -- NOT) is using 5% of my CPU cycles. That becomes a significant amount of lost SETI work units. Just in case you were wondering, with SETI Driver set to Normal Priority: ZoneAlarm is using 5% SETI Command is using about 94% Total CPU usage is about 99% . If I switch SETI Driver to High Priority: ZoneAlarm drops to 3% SETI Command increases to 95.5% Total CPU usage ups to about 99.5%. Wired routers cost about $40, now. The best thing is that once you have one running, it's a small step further to start growing a computer farm. I had a chance to get intimate with a Linksys WRT54G *wireless* router (closer to $80 for one of those). It was only slightly more complex than what you might be generally used to in your pedestrian lives. Lots of menus, a couple of new concepts (ports, IP addresses, the DECO in your router assigning local IP addresses to the computers in your farm -- the meat of the hardware firewall concept). I'm out of that situation now; I don't have the Linksys router anymore. And I agree with Usenet that switching to a router / hardware firewall (wired or wireless) and getting rid of the ZoneAlarm software-firewall carpool would be an improvement -- not only for getting back 5% of my CPU cycles, but for improving the stability of my computer. I'm pretty sure the ZoneAlarm is responsible for most of the crashing that happens around here. OK, I confess I'm still using Win98se, and I have some minor stability issues. If I insist on continuing to use 98, I think it would be much happier if I'd get a hardware firewall and un-install that dumb ZoneAlarm running in the background. Ciao, -Neil- Sorry, I think my spellchecker hiccupped. I wrote: > ... ports, IP addresses, the DECO in your router assigning local IP addresses to the computers in your farm -- the meat of the hardware firewall concept... Should have been, "... the DHCP in your router... > OK, I confess I'm still using Win98se, and I have some minor stability > issues. If I insist on continuing to use 98, I think it would be much > happier if I'd get a hardware firewall and un-install that dumb ZoneAlarm > running in the background. My condolances. I used Win98 from 1998 to 2000 and it was was the worst piece of crap I have ever used. What a joke for an OS! You would be so much happier with Windows 2000 or a Mac. I use both and wouldn't want to be without either. Al wrote... > You would be so much happier with Windows 2000 or a Mac. Well, I have to do something, someday. Maybe I can avoid moving into XP. Security problems seem to be getting worse, not better, and I don't get the feeling that Microsoft is getting a handle on the problem. Never saw a bad word about Macs. Reading a little about Mandrake-linux, and they claim to be user friendly, and also very secure... CU, -Neil- [...] > Security problems seem to be getting worse, not better, and I don't get the > feeling that Microsoft is getting a handle on the problem. Never saw a bad > word about Macs. Reading a little about Mandrake-linux, and they claim to > be user friendly, and also very secure... Macs use another branch of unix to that of linux. There are many similarities. Very good machines with a reliable (virus free) OS. Marketed and packaged very differently to MS... Regards, Martin Signature---------- OS? What's that?! - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux ---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3 Dear Usenet, You wrote: > ... configure an old PC to run a Linux based firewall. Gee whizzz, why can't I use Windoze???? (WCIUW?) Thanks, -Neil- > Dear Usenet, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Gee whizzz, why can't I use Windoze???? (WCIUW?) I'll let Usenet provide the definitive answer, but I'd suspect it's 'cuz Linux is generally less vulnerable to attack, and less often the target of an attack, 'cuz most script kiddies are writing for M$ OS's. SignatureStrat Stratcat wrote... > I'd suspect it's 'cuz Linux is generally less vulnerable to attack, and less often the > target of an attack, 'cuz most script kiddies are writing for M$ OS's. Logical. Good thinking. -Neil- > "Flwrite" <lostwithout@home.com> wrote in message [...] >>>... configure an old PC to run a Linux based firewall. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Linux is generally less vulnerable to attack, and less often the > target of an attack, 'cuz most script kiddies are writing for M$ OS's. Not a definitive answer but linux tends to be a lot more sympathetic towards old hardware. It will also reliably tolerate high system overloading of slow old hardware. And then you have to clobber performance further for Windoze by adding various 'third party' 'protection' with anti-virus and individual firewalling. There are too many variations of linux to make for an easy target. You might easily be able to breeze through the buckshot holes the rotten wooden big barn door of Microsoft, but that isn't so easy for the scattered variously shaped clouds of linux. (:-O) WCIUW?... Err, nope... can't guess that one! Have fun, Martin Signature---------- OS? What's that?! - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux ---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3 Dear Martin, You wrote... > WCIUW?... Err, nope... can't guess that one! I had written, "Gee whizzz, why can't I use Windoze???? (WCIUW?)" Get it? Obviously, a more productive question would be, "Why *shouldn't* I use Windoze???? You wrote: > ... linux tends to be a lot more sympathetic towards > old hardware. It will also reliably tolerate high > system overloading of slow old hardware. You mean it will take forever until it finishes a process, which is at least better than crashing. Mandrake confirms: ------------------- > Recommended hardware for Mandrakelinux 10.0: > Processor: an x586-class or above processor is required. This includes Intel Pentium I/II/III/IV, AMD K6/II/III, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon/XP/MP. SMP multi-processor machines are supported. A quick Google suggests that "SMP" is a Linux term. Might be an acronym for Symmetrical Multi-Processing. Resources exist regarding which multi-processor motherboards are capable of SMP. Probably not an issue with my 200 MHz firewall computer. > A version of Mandrakelinux 10.0 for Athlon64 is released separately. That's French for, "A separate version of Mandrakelinux 10.0 is available for Athlon64." After browsing their webpages a while, you learn to translate on the fly. You wrote: > And then you have to clobber performance further for > Windoze by adding various 'third party' 'protection' > with anti-virus and individual firewalling. That sounds like a catch-22. For an old computer dedicated as a hardware firewall, what is the method for firewalling the firewall-computer? I found the answer: According to Mandrakelinux: > In over ten years of widespread use, only a few rumored > viruses have ever been recorded that affect Linux. This > strong immunity can be explained by the fundamental > architecture of the system which consists of independent > layers that have specific features and strict permissions. That's a pretty strong selling point. If they only had a few viruses, they probably updated the operating system as required. It sounds like any "anti-virus software" for Linux is probably much less bloated than is required for Windoze. http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188 Linux vs. Windows Viruses - "To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it." - Scott Granneman. He continues: > Even if the OS has been set up correctly, with an > Administrator account and a non-privileged user [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted > out in any sensibly secure fashion. It's better not to leave the computer running with all the Permissions turned on, just in case a hacker tries to break in and perform functions - such as install spyware. If you're logged in as an administrator, it's much easier for a hacker to start doing things. I see criticisms about Windows XP that give the installing-user Administrative privileges, with hardly a mention about setting up User accounts, no less advising against running as an Administrator. Also, maybe it's on this newsgroup that I read that it's a badly kept secret that WinXP has problems with different users logging in and logging off, and trying to hot-switch between users. I don't know if 2000 shares this problem. I assume Linux has this issue well under control. There's a function in Win98 that provides for separate users, but I've always thought it was just a silly toy so everyone can have their own wallpaper, etc., so I never played with it. Unless I'm wrong, all users have administrator privileges on 98, even unwelcome visitors. Regards to 53N 1W. -Neil- For anyone following along: The firewall-computer also serves as a router. Therefore, only a dumb [cheap] hub needs to be hung from the firewall-computer's ethernet port so all the users' computers can connect to it. The speed of the microprocessor (uP) should corrolate to the number of computers being fed by the firewall-router-computer. I think I read that a 100 MHz Pentium 1 is fast enough to serve two computers. I guess you can keep an eye on the "Kernel Processor Usage (%)" to see if it's starting to max out. --------- Unanswered questions: Shall I assume "two" ethernet cards? -- one to the internet connection, and the other to the hub? (The Guzzintta and the Guzzoutta.) Are there little hub PCI cards (for the Guzzoutta)? Just a few ports would do me fine. What are some firewall-router programs that are used in dedicated-firewall-router computers? Or is that all included in the Linux OS? ---------- Same bat time, same bat channel. -Neil- > For anyone following along: Phew, quite a set of researching posts... > The firewall-computer also serves as a router. Therefore, only a dumb [...] > 100 MHz Pentium 1 is fast enough to serve two computers. I guess you can [...] You can do a surprising amount with a 100MHz CPU. > Unanswered questions: > > Shall I assume "two" ethernet cards? -- one to the internet connection, and > the other to the hub? (The Guzzintta and the Guzzoutta.) Yes. The firewall machine physically isolates the protected lan from everywhere else. > Are there little hub PCI cards (for the Guzzoutta)? Just a few ports would > do me fine. There are 4 port cards, but these seem to be rare oddities. Instead, just gobble up two PCI slots with a NIC in each. Cheap also. > What are some firewall-router programs that are used in > dedicated-firewall-router computers? Or is that all included in the Linux > OS? The 'workings' are already in the kernel. There are then lots of utilities and GUI stuff that you can put on top to make the tweakings very much easier. You can even do traffic shaping and clever stuff that such as Cisco charge mega-bucks for. There's a few dedicated distros for firewall use. Some run straight from a removeable disk (no HDD required). Smoothwall, Shorewall & Guarddog are three names worth looking up. There's lots more. Good luck, Martin Signature---------- OS? What's that?! - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux ---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3 > 100 MHz Pentium 1 is fast enough to serve two computers. I guess you can > keep an eye on the "Kernel Processor Usage (%)" to see if it's starting to > max out. My old Compaq Prosignia VS upgraded to a AMD5x86 133Mhz processor (somewhere equivalent to 70Mhz pentium) maxes out CPU at about 6 - 7 megabits routed through it. That's an aggregate total of 14 megabits per second. I think it will still be a few years before consumer broadband connectivity has progressed to the point where I need to buy a faster router machine :-) Perhaps one with PCI slots then... [...] > I had written, "Gee whizzz, why can't I use Windoze???? (WCIUW?)" > > Get it? I do now, but then I've not had to suffer sms text messaging much... (:-)) > Obviously, a more productive question would be, "Why *shouldn't* I use > Windoze???? And thus some good alternative research!... > You mean it will take forever until it finishes a process, which is at least > better than crashing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Intel Pentium I/II/III/IV, AMD K6/II/III, AMD Duron, AMD Athlon/XP/MP. SMP > multi-processor machines are supported. [...] > Symmetrical Multi-Processing. Resources exist regarding which > multi-processor motherboards are capable of SMP. Probably not an issue with > my 200 MHz firewall computer. Yes on all counts. Also, the linux scheduler will keep 'interactive' tasks at a higher priority to keep a heavily loaded system still 'responsive'. > That's French for, "A separate version of Mandrakelinux 10.0 is available > for Athlon64." After browsing their webpages a while, you learn to > translate on the fly. They do have some 'interesting' Franglaise... (:-)) [...] > firewall, what is the method for firewalling the firewall-computer? I found > the answer: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>In over ten years of widespread use, only a few rumored >>viruses have ever been recorded that affect Linux. This [...] > That's a pretty strong selling point. If they only had a few viruses, they > probably updated the operating system as required. It sounds like any > "anti-virus software" for Linux is probably much less bloated than is > required for Windoze. For linux, whatever 'exploits' very soon get fixed. Serious ones get fixed and publicised in just hours. There's very good communication through the linux community. The virus scanners for linux are actually scanning for Microsoft viruses so that a linux system doesn't forward the junk onwards. > http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188 Linux vs. Windows Viruses - "To > mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Administrator account and a non-privileged user >>account, things are still not copasetic. On a Windows [...] Yep. Windows is by _design_ a single user system. Various 'add-ons' have been added to add incomplete multi-user capability. Most of the security for MS systems relies on physically seperate client & server machines blocked by a firewall and various 'logins' for their file sharing. NT after many years was eventually patched up to something well known and reasonably workable. > Also, maybe it's on this newsgroup that I read that it's a badly kept secret > that WinXP has problems with different users logging in and logging off, and > trying to hot-switch between users. I don't know if 2000 shares this Yep. Caused me various strange problems... gave up with it. > problem. I assume Linux has this issue well under control. You can have thousands of users accounts on your box if you wish. You could even have a lot of them logged simultaneously! The s@h servers run on linux for good reasons... (:-)) > There's a function in Win98 that provides for separate users, but I've > always thought it was just a silly toy so everyone can have their own Pretty much so. One user can still rearrange everything for everyone else. We have to enforce file restrictions by forcing users to log into a remote server to see their files. Everything on a local machine is just 'open public property'... Look on alt.os.linux.mandrake. Good luck, Martin Signature---------- OS? What's that?! - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux ---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3 > Linux is generally less vulnerable to attack, and less often the > target of an attack, 'cuz most script kiddies are writing for M$ OS's. A few years ago the situation was reversed, before these mass-trojans and viruses with trojan/drone functionality came, the most desired box was a *nix one, since they would mosto ften be online 24/7, and on a fast link. That time of course gave *nix the test of fire, so to speak. Atleast, that's what I think :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.