That's not a virus, that's tricking a human to run a trojan. One can trick an old lady into giving up her ATM card and pin, and the location of her purse. That's doesn't make the security of a bank equivalent to her purse.
How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? "Click this link!" "Read this e-mail!" "Watch this video!" The vast majority of malware on people's systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user's part.
Yes, the occasional virus pops up every now and then that exploits a genuine security hole in the operating system itself, or in a commonly installed package. If you think such holes only exist on Windows systems, you might want to patch your system.
But that's really not the point. It doesn't help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain. If you look at the malware that's out there in the wild right now, it got there largely by the user downloading a file or clicking a link. And if you clicked any of the above links in my previous paragraph, you've proven my point that clicking potentially dangerous links isn't restricted to naive Windows users.
I don't know what distro of Linux desktops the Brazilian kids or French parliamentarians are running. But if their users use web browsers with plug-in support, media players, rich email clients, office/productivity software, games, filesharing applications, or chat clients, then they're just as vulnerable to security compromises as any Windows system. Linux is not magic.
Well you got a response to a posting you made... I guess that could interpreted as such, I mean how often does something like thathappen around here?
How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? "Click this link!" "Read this e-mail!" "Watch this video!" The vast majority of malware on people's systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user's part.
Right, your point is that a human being, with all their glorious gullibility is common to both Linux and Windows seats, and therefore neither system is more secure than the other. My point was that the human factor is silent as to whether one or the other is inherently more secure, since as I said, the same arguement could be used to say that purses and ATM machines are equivelent in security because an old lady could be easily tricked into giving access to either. Obviously the gullibility of the old lady doesn't establish that ATM's and purses are equivalent in security.
I'm not limiting the discussion, I'm rejecting the assertion that a human being's involvement establishes that one thing can't be more secure than another.
“How do you think most malware gets onto a system in the first place? “Click this link!” “Read this e-mail!” “Watch this video!” The vast majority of malware on people’s systems got there as a direct result of some unwitting action on the user’s part.”
I virus requires no human interaction (like code red and nimda for example). A trojan can contain a virus but unless the software self propagates without user intervention after that point its not a virus.
“it doesn’t help to prove that desktop Linux is intrinsically more secure if you try to use semantics to limit the discussion domain.”
Nor does it help to prove its not any more secure by muddling about with the proper terminology and setting up the straw man of ‘Linux people say its full proof’