From: "Rod Gasson" 


"Bob Lawrence" 
wrote in message
news:1085901165{at}p12.f610.n712.z3.ftn...

>  Linux is a much better sytem than Windows, which is obviously
> vulnerable, but I assume that somewhere, someone knows how to get past
> the Linux root priviliges, and once he does, it's pretty easy. I am
> not so big-headed to say that it is impossible.

Of course it's not impossible.  There are actually dozens, if not hundreds
of Linux "rootkits" out there that can be used to give anyone
root access to
a linux box.
The hard part is for the hacker to find a way to install these 'kits' in the
first place.

> RG> A Linux firewall is actually an integral part of the O/S
> RG> itself. IE, the firewall code doesn't run "on top" of the
> RG> operating system (like windoze based "solutions"), it is
> RG> actually a PART of it.
>
>  Oh durr... and that makes difference, does it?

You must have thought so, else you wouldn't have made comment about it.

>  To me, the problem is not so much the PC as the Internet itself.
> Fido was set up correctly for mass-use, the internet was set up for
> uniwankers. What has made the internet grow, is not the net approach
> and its protocols, it is cheap satellite communication using downtime.
> What we now need, is a centralised system

No, that is what we DON'T want.  One of the main strenghs of the Internet is
that it ISN'T a centralised system. It is/was designed specifically to avoid
this. The idea being that if any one took out any part of the internet the
rest of it would still remain functional.
Having a centralised system means that a hacker would be able to target the
central core and take out the entire network.

> with a heirarchy where spam
> and bullshit can be easily filtered out, and the ones doing it, sorted
> out.

One mans spam is another mans ham.  I don't want ANYONE filtering my email
for me. I prefer to do my own filtering thank you.

>  Aside from the pathetics downloading porn, the major legal use for
> the net is email and information exchange, but we have a monster where
> every email may contain a virus,

Emails don't contain viruses, the attachments they contain may do though.
The difference is subtle, but also important. It makes the difference as to
whether you can get an infection just by READING the email or whether you
have to ACTIVELY OPEN the attachment to become infected.

> the informastion is suss,

No more suss than information obtained from any other source (newspapers,
etc).

> and money exchange is attracting criminals.

And what is your solution to this?   Ban internet banking?  close down all
online stores?
Why limit this to just the internet?  Banks and shops have been good targets
for criminals for as long as they've existed.

> This can't be fixed by linux firewall.

True,  just as you can't protect you money by putting it in a safe - people
break into safes too.

Cheers
Rod







--- ifmail v.2.15