http://lug-iitd.org/Articles/
Another nice article is this:-
http://lug-iitd.org/Article/
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Where money comes for Open Source
The IIT-D LUG site has some great information. One article that is a must share is below, which answers the oft asked question.
http://lug-iitd.org/Articles/where_does_the_money_comes_from_FOSS
Another nice article is this:-
http://lug-iitd.org/Article/Cost_benefits_of_Free_and_Open_Source_Software
http://lug-iitd.org/Articles/
Another nice article is this:-
http://lug-iitd.org/Article/
Why no Virus in Linux
One of the best articles/blog I have seen explaining the Linux virus issue - something that many have been asking me. Those interested, can read thru for a lucid explanation that the 'hard time the Linux virus has'
---------------
The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
Why aren't the existing Linux viruses[1] anything more than a topic for conversation? Why don't they affect you in your daily computing in the way that MS viruses affect Windows users?
There are several reasons for the non-issue of the Linux virus. Most of those reasons a Linux user would already be familiar with, but there is one, all important, reason that a student of evolution or zoology would also appreciate.
First, let's take a look at the way Linux has stacked the deck against the virus.
For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories for viruses.
Even if the virus successfully infects a program owned by the user, its task of propagation is made much more difficult by the limited privileges of the user account. [For neophyte Linux users running a single-user system, of course, this argument may not apply. Such a user might be careless with the root account.]
Linux networking programs are conservatively constructed, without the high-level macro facilities that have enabled the recent Windows viruses to propagate so rapidly. This is not an inherent feature of Linux; it is simply a reflection of the differences between the two user bases and the resulting differences between the products that are successful in those markets. The lessons learned from observing these problems will also serve as an innoculation for future Linux products as well.
Linux applications and system software is almost all open source. Because so much of the Linux market is accustomed to the availability of source code, binary-only products are rare and have a harder time achieving a substantial market presence. This has two effects on the virus. First, open source code is a tough place for a virus to hide. Second, for the binary-only virus, a newly compiled installation cuts off a prime propagation vector.
Each one of these obstacles represents a significant impediment to the success of a virus. It is when they are considered together, however, that the basic problem emerges.
A computer virus, like a biological virus, must have a reproduction rate that exceeds its death (eradication) rate in order to spread. Each of the above obstacles significantly reduces the reproduction rate of the Linux virus. If the reproduction rate falls below the threshold necessary to replace the existing population, the virus is doomed from the beginning -- even before news reports start to raise the awareness level of potential victims.
The reason that we have not seen a real Linux virus epidemic in the wild is simply that none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment that Linux provides. The Linux viruses that exist today are nothing more than technical curiosities; the reality is that there is no viable Linux virus.
Of course this doesn't mean that there can never be a Linux virus epidemic.[2] It does mean, however, that a successful Linux virus must be well-crafted and innovative to succeed in the inhospitable Linux ecosystem.
[1] Bliss is the only Linux-compatible virus seen in the wild. Staog is the first known Linux virus.
---------------
The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
Why aren't the existing Linux viruses[1] anything more than a topic for conversation? Why don't they affect you in your daily computing in the way that MS viruses affect Windows users?
There are several reasons for the non-issue of the Linux virus. Most of those reasons a Linux user would already be familiar with, but there is one, all important, reason that a student of evolution or zoology would also appreciate.
First, let's take a look at the way Linux has stacked the deck against the virus.
For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories for viruses.
Even if the virus successfully infects a program owned by the user, its task of propagation is made much more difficult by the limited privileges of the user account. [For neophyte Linux users running a single-user system, of course, this argument may not apply. Such a user might be careless with the root account.]
Linux networking programs are conservatively constructed, without the high-level macro facilities that have enabled the recent Windows viruses to propagate so rapidly. This is not an inherent feature of Linux; it is simply a reflection of the differences between the two user bases and the resulting differences between the products that are successful in those markets. The lessons learned from observing these problems will also serve as an innoculation for future Linux products as well.
Linux applications and system software is almost all open source. Because so much of the Linux market is accustomed to the availability of source code, binary-only products are rare and have a harder time achieving a substantial market presence. This has two effects on the virus. First, open source code is a tough place for a virus to hide. Second, for the binary-only virus, a newly compiled installation cuts off a prime propagation vector.
Each one of these obstacles represents a significant impediment to the success of a virus. It is when they are considered together, however, that the basic problem emerges.
A computer virus, like a biological virus, must have a reproduction rate that exceeds its death (eradication) rate in order to spread. Each of the above obstacles significantly reduces the reproduction rate of the Linux virus. If the reproduction rate falls below the threshold necessary to replace the existing population, the virus is doomed from the beginning -- even before news reports start to raise the awareness level of potential victims.
The reason that we have not seen a real Linux virus epidemic in the wild is simply that none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment that Linux provides. The Linux viruses that exist today are nothing more than technical curiosities; the reality is that there is no viable Linux virus.
Of course this doesn't mean that there can never be a Linux virus epidemic.[2] It does mean, however, that a successful Linux virus must be well-crafted and innovative to succeed in the inhospitable Linux ecosystem.
[1] Bliss is the only Linux-compatible virus seen in the wild. Staog is the first known Linux virus.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Credit Card Security
Credit Card usage has its own advantages and convenience. Not to mention, the Credit Card should be also used safely and judiciously, and one should be aware of the risks associated with it.
One important aspect the protection of the CVV number (three digit number found at the back of the card!). Your credit card number and date of expiry can be easily found (from swipe machine etc), but the CVV number is required if the CC is to be used in places where you do not present the card (like online transactions!!). SO PLEASE PROTECT THAT 'CVV' NUMBER BECAUSE IF SOMEONE KNOWS YOUR CVV NUMBER THAN THEY CAN BUY ONLINE USING YOUR CC INFO. This is critical in instances when we hand over our CC in restaurants, petrol bunks, shopping malls etc.
Please follow these simple CC protection measure:-
(a) DO NOT photocopy your Credit Card EVER!!
(b) Commit your CVV number to memory and blacken the CVV number with a permanent marker so that it is unreadable. Else put a small opaque tape over it.
The above small measure makes your CC usage safer (but not risk proof!!!)
One important aspect the protection of the CVV number (three digit number found at the back of the card!). Your credit card number and date of expiry can be easily found (from swipe machine etc), but the CVV number is required if the CC is to be used in places where you do not present the card (like online transactions!!). SO PLEASE PROTECT THAT 'CVV' NUMBER BECAUSE IF SOMEONE KNOWS YOUR CVV NUMBER THAN THEY CAN BUY ONLINE USING YOUR CC INFO. This is critical in instances when we hand over our CC in restaurants, petrol bunks, shopping malls etc.
Please follow these simple CC protection measure:-
(a) DO NOT photocopy your Credit Card EVER!!
(b) Commit your CVV number to memory and blacken the CVV number with a permanent marker so that it is unreadable. Else put a small opaque tape over it.
The above small measure makes your CC usage safer (but not risk proof!!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
