Instant desktop search

[aigle]

Is there an instant search for Ubuntu/ Linux, just like the one in Vista and Win 7 or something like google desktop search?

Thanks

[chronomatic]

There are several. I am pretty sure Ubuntu comes with a desktop search enabled by default. I use Kubuntu and with it, you simply hit "Alt-F2" which opens a window where you enter search terms. Ubuntu uses a different backend, but Alt-F2 might do the same thing.

If that doesn't work, then Beagle is popular. You can also use google desktop search as well. (sudo apt-get install google-desktop-linux)

[aigle]

Thanks. I will tryt it.

Mint has an excellent instant search function. I'm gonna become a shameless Mint promoter troll

[aigle]

Ok, what,s better in Mint than Ubuntu in ur opinion?

BTW Beagle seems not so instantaneous.

[iceni60]

you can try catfish, it's a frontend for several search programs. if you use it with locate it should be instant. it's what that windows program locate 32 is based on. you can just use locate from a terminal though and learning how to use find and grep isn't too difficult.

edit: this is it -
http://software.twotoasts.de/index.p...ries/4-Catfish

it's a bit old, and there are probably newer search programs now. but it's easy to use and you can tell it which directories to search and you can add it to your file manager right-click option (but you can probably do that with others too)

Originally Posted by aigle

Ok, what,s better in Mint than Ubuntu in ur opinion?

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest Mint is better, only that's what i use and find it speedy, though I'm sure Ubuntu is probably equally as good, because Mint is based on it.

[aigle]

No, I really want to know. Ubuntu is fine but I hate the fact that it,s slow. I tried PCLOS Gnome and that was way faster than Ubuntu. Hope they can look on this issue.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by iceni60

you can try catfish, it's a frontend for several search programs. if you use it with locate it should be instant. it's what that windows program locate 32 is based on. you can just use locate from a terminal though and learning how to use find and grep isn't too difficult.

edit: this is it -
http://software.twotoasts.de/index.p...ries/4-Catfish

it's a bit old, and there are probably newer search programs now. but it's easy to use and you can tell it which directories to search and you can add it to your file manager right-click option (but you can probably do that with others too)

Thanks. BTW I want something just working out of the box. I am tired of tweaks n tweaks.

[SpikeyB]

How about a right click on the panel then add to panel>deskbar

It might not be good enough for your requirements but it's so quick and easy for you to try out if you don't want to tweak (it wont take you more than 60 seconds to try it). Click the icon not the arrow (you can click that later).

Here's a page explaining it: http://projects.gnome.org/deskbar-applet/

[aigle]

Thanks. Sure I will try this. System hard disk crashed just now.

[chronomatic]

aigle, your signature needs addressing.

First of all, why do you want a "pop-up HIPS" for Ubuntu? What is your definition of a "HIPS?"

Secondly, there are already "sandboxes" for Linux. Indeed, your Ubuntu machine has one installed by default -- it's called AppArmor and it can sandbox individual applications. Moreover, since all Ubuntu users, by default, run in a limited account, this works as a semi-sandbox itself. And if you need something more, you can run a virtual machine.

Third, you don't need a key scrambler since keyloggers cannot be installed without root access to your machine. Unless you are surfing the web as root or installing questionable software, you have nothing to worry about where keyloggers are concerned.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by chronomatic

aigle, your signature needs addressing.

First of all, why do you want a "pop-up HIPS" for Ubuntu? What is your definition of a "HIPS?"

Secondly, there are already "sandboxes" for Linux. Indeed, your Ubuntu machine has one installed by default -- it's called AppArmor and it can sandbox individual applications. Moreover, since all Ubuntu users, by default, run in a limited account, this works as a semi-sandbox itself. And if you need something more, you can run a virtual machine.

Third, you don't need a key scrambler since keyloggers cannot be installed without root access to your machine. Unless you are surfing the web as root or installing questionable software, you have nothing to worry about where keyloggers are concerned.

1- A pop up HIPS means, I need a software that can intercept all new execuatables, whether benign or malware. I will be sure that nothing malicious running in background and I am blind to that.

2- AppArmor doesn,t see easy to use. I need something easier like Sandbxoie, SW or GW, basically to cover browser exploits.

3- I think it,s likely that a malware can run in linux without root access. It might not exist now but can come any time in the wild and who knows such malware are still there. It,s just a matter a time, if Linux gets a significant share in desktop market, I believe we will see all type of malware for linux too.

May be I am wrong though.

[Ocky]

Originally Posted by aigle

2- AppArmor doesn,t see easy to use. I need something easier like Sandbxoie, SW or GW, basically to cover browser exploits.

You already have several AppArmor profiles running in enforced mode 'out of the box'.
To see what they are run: sudo apparmor_status

The Firefox profile is optional, but it is there and can be enabled as follows:-

$ sudo aa-enforce /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5

To disable it again:-

$ sudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5
$ sudo ln -s /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5 /etc/apparmor.d/disable/usr.bin.firefox-3.5

I have tried the FF profile - nice test is to go to a page with java like http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml
- it prevents the applet from loading. Was a nuisance for me as I often need java for monitoring/analysing
stock market graphs - so I disabled it. Feel safe enough with NoScript and don't download crap, let alone
execute crap.

See also here https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AppArmor

I am not sure whether the 2 example commands for cups below are still applicable in Karmic 9.10,
or whether one needs to enter the path to the executable to change cups say from enforce
to complain mode and vice versa. (?)
Eg.
sudo aa-complain cupsd (to disable)
sudo aa-enforce cupsd (to enable)

[aigle]

I will play with when I have some time. It needs a lot of time. I use Opera so FF profile is not so useful for me.

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by Ocky

I have tried the FF profile - nice test is to go to a page with java like http://www.java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml
- it prevents the applet from loading. Was a nuisance for me as I often need java for monitoring/analysing
stock market graphs - so I disabled it.

I think the default firefox profile is pretty good -- it covers a lot of bases. However, as you said, there are a few corner cases that it doesn't cover. Your link does not work for me either. However, when I try other online java browser tests, they do work. I have scanned my logs and don't see any error messages when I try to run that Java applet. So, I am not sure what is being blocked or why.

At any rate, if you find something is blocked, you can merely run "sudo aa-logprof" and go through the logs.

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by aigle

1- A pop up HIPS means, I need a software that can intercept all new execuatables, whether benign or malware. I will be sure that nothing malicious running in background and I am blind to that.

This is not necessary on Linux because Linux doesn't work the same way Windows does. Linux does not rely on file extensions to determine if a file can execute. File extensions mean *nothing* on Unix/Linux. All that matters are file permissions. Moreover, Linux does not allow any newly downloaded or created file execute permissions unless you, the user, explicitly make it executable. This is called a umask, and all distros usually set it to 022 (google "umask" for more info). Therefore, there is no way (short of an application exploit) that something can execute without your knowledge to begin with. And if you want to stop application exploits, you can use AppArmor.

2- AppArmor doesn,t see easy to use. I need something easier like Sandbxoie, SW or GW, basically to cover browser exploits.

I've never used Sandboxie or any other Windows HIPS or sandbox, so I can't comment. However, I can sat that AppArmor is pretty easy to use once you learn the basics of it.

3- I think it,s likely that a malware can run in linux without root access. It might not exist now but can come any time in the wild and who knows such malware are still there. It,s just a matter a time, if Linux gets a significant share in desktop market, I believe we will see all type of malware for linux too.

Malware can run without root, sure. But you would have to explicitly execute it on purpose. Therefore, the only malware Linux is prone to are things like trojans (which trick the user into doing something he shouldn't).

[Mrkvonic]

Malware is overrated on Windows, twice so on Linux.
Don't execute crap - nothing happens. The end. Enjoy the good stuff.
Mrk

[aigle]

Originally Posted by chronomatic

This is not necessary on Linux because Linux doesn't work the same way Windows does. Linux does not rely on file extensions to determine if a file can execute. File extensions mean *nothing* on Unix/Linux. All that matters are file permissions. Moreover, Linux does not allow any newly downloaded or created file execute permissions unless you, the user, explicitly make it executable. This is called a umask, and all distros usually set it to 022 (google "umask" for more info). Therefore, there is no way (short of an application exploit) that something can execute without your knowledge to begin with.

Problem are the the exploits. Windows also doesn,t execute anything unless user does so or there is an exploit.

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by aigle

Problem are the the exploits. Windows also doesn,t execute anything unless user does so or there is an exploit.

I am not familiar with the way Windows does everything nowadays, but several years back I know it was common for Outlook to automatically execute e-mail attachments. Linux mail clients have never done things this stupid by default.

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by Mrkvonic

Malware is overrated on Windows, twice so on Linux.
Don't execute crap - nothing happens. The end. Enjoy the good stuff.
Mrk

You have said this before and it's simply not true. Have you never heard of drive-by downloads? This is where web pages automatically execute things in your browser and cause a compromise of the machine. Now, one might say "only surf to safe sites." Yeah, that would work if it weren't for the fact that 1 in 10 websites on the Internet are now compromised, with many of them being completely innocent websites.

[Mrkvonic]

Compromised sites are overrated, too. Besides, that's part of the execution too.

If you're running a patched browser, patched OS, the drive-bys are nothing more than a nuisance, if that. Web browsers "could" execute and "could" cause compromise to machines, but those two big coulds do not translate into can or will.

I don't even want to mention "heavy" stuff like limited user or noscript, which really make all this stuff boring.

The sheer emphasis on panic in public media - you just go to a site and get infected - is erroneous on so many levels that I have a small bout of berserking rage every time I read it, written by pseudo-journalists looking for traffic by means of fear mongering.

Getting infected by computer malware is no more than getting infected with an STD. You simply don't have to.

Mrk

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by Mrkvonic

Compromised sites are overrated, too. Besides, that's part of the execution too.

If you're running a patched browser, patched OS, the drive-bys are nothing more than a nuisance, if that. Web browsers "could" execute and "could" cause compromise to machines, but those two big coulds do not translate into can or will.

Patched software does not exclude the possibility of 0-days.

I don't even want to mention "heavy" stuff like limited user or noscript, which really make all this stuff boring.

Sure those things work, but doing that is not what you said originally. You said "don't execute crap and you'll be fine." It's not as simple as "safe surfing habits" and "not executing crap." Unless one turns off all scripts in the browser, not executing crap is impossible.

The sheer emphasis on panic in public media - you just go to a site and get infected - is erroneous on so many levels that I have a small bout of berserking rage every time I read it, written by pseudo-journalists looking for traffic by means of fear mongering.

Are you denying that drive-by downloads are a problem?

Getting infected by computer malware is no more than getting infected with an STD. You simply don't have to.

I agree it doesn't have to be this way. I think more people should use *nix, but that doesn't mean they will. The fact is, those on Windows (especially those still using XP) are at a great risk of infection simply by surfing the web. Most people do not run XP in a LUA and do not know about NoScript. therefore your advice to "not execute crap" does not work for them.

[Kerodo]

Originally Posted by chronomatic

I agree it doesn't have to be this way. I think more people should use *nix, but that doesn't mean they will. The fact is, those on Windows (especially those still using XP) are at a great risk of infection simply by surfing the web. Most people do not run XP in a LUA and do not know about NoScript. therefore your advice to "not execute crap" does not work for them.

I kinda have to agree with Mrk to some extent. I've been "surfing the web" now for close to 15 years and have never ever even once been hit with any kind of drive-by or malware or anything. And that using every browser imaginable, including all version of IE. If I were "at a great risk of infection", one would think I'd have been hit many times by now. To be honest, it's just something I don't worry about, based on my experience.

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by Kerodo

I kinda have to agree with Mrk to some extent. I've been "surfing the web" now for close to 15 years and have never ever even once been hit with any kind of drive-by or malware or anything. And that using every browser imaginable, including all version of IE. If I were "at a great risk of infection", one would think I'd have been hit many times by now. To be honest, it's just something I don't worry about, based on my experience.

Then you must have good security practices. I guarantee if you were running your box as admin, using IE with scripting allowed, you would not have been malware free all of this time. Actually, I must ask: how can you be sure you have never been infected?

Hijacked websites are found all the time -- as I said, it is estimated that 1 in 10 sites on the Internet are infected. Here is an example found recently (Fox Sports Net).

here is a quote from the article:

The ThreatSeeker Network has detected that thousands of Web sites have been compromised by the latest Gumblar campaign. The Gumblar page is highly obfuscated. After deobfuscation, the page uses PDF and Flash exploits to run malware in order to control a victim's computer. In addition, a piece of VBScript is executed to download malware.

This means if a person is surfing the web as admin (90% of Windows users) and allows Flash applets to run (95% of people) and they visit a legitimate site like Fox Sports Net, they become part of a botnet instantly.

Do you guys still care to deny that drive-by's are real?