I have a complaint about the website
segin2005 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 27 15:01:05 CST 2006
Jason Green wrote:
>On 3/27/06, Segin <segin2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Due to the current state of Wine, plus it's archjitechure, Even if a
>>virus was found, it is much easier to remove.
>>If the virus is a memory-resident kind, you can do pkill -9 wine as root
>>or your user and shut down ile essentially killing said virus.
>>A lot of viruses, in order to keep small, attempt to make fnction calls
>>based on a DLL function absolute address. This has a 1 in 256 million
>>cnahce in working, because each time you recodmile wine, the function
>>entry points change. all that aill result in is a segmentation fault.
>I agree that running viruses are much more difficult in Wine than in
>Windows, however, by default, Wine maps Z:\ to your entire Linux tree.
> If the user running Wine has write-access to any other folders in the
>Linux system tree and runs a virus which randomly deletes or modifies
>files on any accessible drive letter, that is still a problem. Plus,
>some users don't use "rm -rf .wine/" on a daily basis like most devs
>do, and they may actually store useful things under their .wine/
>folder. In the (albeit, unlikely) event of "succesfully" running a
>Windows virus, those files are at risk.
>There are plenty of distros that install some version of Wine by
>default and automatically associate .exe's and the like with Wine, so
>users that aren't careful are still at risk. Granted, that risk is
>minimized by not being fully compatible with everything Windows does
>[yet], but it's still a risk.
maybe if we put in a md5sum database of viruses and refuse to run those
that are viruses?
it's not as good as a real a/v app, but it's a start.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-devel