will virus infect other machines in the same wireless network?

If their security isn't any better than that of the infected or hacked machine, almost certainly.

As Giles said, it depends on the virus and the details of your network. Some viruses propagate over network shares, others don't.

Your best bet is to keep your network secure behind a hardware firewall (IMHO, any NAT router will do), have good security (WPA with a non-dictionary passphrase) on your wireless network, and have up-to-date virus scanners on all your machines.

If your machines trust each other and one is infected, and the virus has a infection vector across one of the trusts, then yes, your other machines are likely to be infected.

It would depend on the hacker, virus, worm, and without further information we couldn't go into specifics.

It would depend on which OS the other machines are running? If the answer is Windows I would say YES.

Maybe. You have three separate computers. They may well all get infected by the same outside source, they may infect each other, or they may get missed.

Viruses are not some mysterious thing in the air, even if you use wireless. They are specific pieces of data and programs that must be transfered and run.

Not if you're using linux. There are no self-propogating linux viruses in the wild.

If you're using NIS to authenticate users, a password compromise on one machine will compromise all the others using NIS as well. Use strong passwords, and change them regularly to reduce the likelihood of this happening.

Well, if you're running Linux, viruses are not an issue. With Windows, they can spread just as well as on a wired network i.e. virtually guaranteed to spread.

I've never claimed that Linux/Unix viruses are impossible. However, the basic design philosophy of Unix & Linux makes it extremely difficult for one to propigate. For example, IE is tightly coupled to the Windows kernel, which means that if it gets compromised, the whole system is. Then there's ActiveX, which relies on trusting the source for security, or the old default behavior of Outlook to automatically run executable attachments, limitations that encourage users to run as admin, etc. On the other hand, Linux & Unix are designed in a modular fashion, which limits the ability of a malware to do damage, a user has to a) detach an executable b) make it executable and c) run it. Even then it can only affect his own files and not the whole system. Also, users are discouraged from running as root, except as necessary. Security in Linux & Unix was built in from the start, as they were intended to be multiuser. Windows however, was originally designed as a single user, non networked system, with security controls tacked on later. You might also take note of the fact that about 70 - 75% of all web sites are running Unix or Linux, yet have the fewest successful attacks. Incidentally, many of those commercial firewall/router boxes run Linux or Unix.

Some Linux distros make it difficult for a user to run as root. On the other hand, most Windows boxes, in non corporate use, there is only the one user who doesn't know enough to not use admin rights. There are also many severe technical flaws in Windows, that make it easy for malware. Unix & Linux were built with security in mind. Windows was not.

Clueless users or not, it's still much harder for malware to propgate on Linux than Windows.

If that attitude becomes widespread as more and more non-technical folks start using Linux, you can be sure Linux will become a target.

Remember, the first reported Internet worm selectively infected Vaxen and Sun boxes running Berkeley BSD UNIX.

Amen you hit the head on the nail. When the clueless reach Linux, the sharks will follow. I use Linux too and I have seen some of the attack reports on that O/S and heaven help Linux. Anything written by fallible Human Beings is not infallible and if one thinks it is one is kidding one's self.

Duane :)

Are one kind of virus or worm worse at spreading than others. How would the virus spread if no data is directly spread between the various computers on the network ? If viruses spread so easy on a network would viruses spread in this manner on a broadband cable network ?

Duane Arnold wrote:

James Knott wrote in news:gNGdnaI-0qLwoQ snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com:

You can song and dance someone else about this. I got Linux on my network. I know the attack profile is less than on the Windows platform and the more technically minded use Linux as opposed to MS. Let the clueless start using Linux like they use MS and will see what happens. There are also severe technical flaws in Linux, Mac 10 O/S and all the rest as Human Beings are flawed. They have not been exposed as the masses are not using those O/S like they are using MS and the sharks are not coming after those O/S(s) like they are coming after MS and the clueless user.

Duane :)

James Knott wrote in news:jKadnS2uf7Ox1w snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com:

No one said it wasn't and Linux is not the bed of roses you make it out to be and I know better. There are AV(s) for Linux too BTW I don't remember some of the names that were posted to me but you can use Google.

Duane :)

A virus doesn't have to be root to propagate (e.g. email viruses), it only has to be root to destroy a system. Of course, that won't protect an individual user's files.

Paul

I think you'll find the main use for Linux AV, is on servers connected to Windows networks.

There are different methods for a virus to spread. At one time, the most common way was booting from infected floppies. Nowadays, it might be via e-mail or directly over a network.

That's certainly the case with Linux. Now compare that to the Windows situation where IE and ActiveX are directly connected to the kernel and, at least some of the time, have full access to the computer. Even locked down corporate systems are still vulnerable, due to security deficiencies in MS software.