linux has a vulnerability

[savagenator]

Linux has a vulnerability, and here's why:

Let us say that windows is free (hypothetically of course). Let us also say that Linux is installed on 90% of the computers in the world in place of windows. Now how secure is Linux?

Recently, after the tightening of security in Vista, there has been many more attacks at the system level instead of the user level, where users are administrators (XP, yuck). This trend can and will probably increase over time. Now if linux was in place of Vista, but is in the same state that it is in now, is Linux just as vulnerable to attack as Vista? Will we need an anti-virus? Will Vista actually be more secure than Linux?

Please command and tell me what you thing, becuase I feel scared for the future of Linux and its open source nature. Its alot easier to make an attack when you have the code, even if it is found and fixed quickly.

and a quick note on BSD: differences? security? like mac or not like mac?

[Vitamin-Carrot]

yes if it was no 1 there would be the same issue .. but its not and while its free and open source, only the lowest of the low would code something malicious for it.

but i sayin that we wont know unless it happens

[antisocialist]

well if 90% of computers were on linux then we would have something to worry about, because then the hackers would be focusing on writing viruses for linux instead of windows, but seeing as linux right now is a mere 4% or so of computers it is almost nothing compared to windows (nothing personal, i love linux just as much as any linux user) as far as usage goes, and because of this huge difference it is much more effective for them to spend time on viruses for windows see this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4424802#post4424802) about a virus recently released for windows.
yes of course there would be more of a risk being open-source, but it would also be fixed like 100x faster because almost 50% of the Linux community are programmers or know 1+ programming language, and if a virus that did some serious harm were release it would be toast within a few hours because it would be countered by so many people at once and the ability to modify anything they need to would give them the ability to stop it.
also it would be less deadly because when you log in you arent a super user and cannot do system wide damage without typing in your password one more time, whereas in windows you have the ability to destroy you system as soon as you log in.

[pytheas22]

Of course Linux has vulnerabilities; no operating system is impregnable, and if Linux were more popular, then sure, there would probably be viruses for it. And even if there aren't viruses, there are still attacks via social engineering (e.g. tricking people into installing malicious software). On the other hand, Unix/Linux was designed from the ground up with a comprehensive security plan; many of the fundamental security measures inside Linux are still not fully implemented in Vista.

Its alot easier to make an attack when you have the code, even if it is found and fixed quickly.

Having the code might make it easier for malicious users to find vulnerabilities, but on the other hand, it makes it more likely that vulnerabilities will be found and patched by good people before the crackers get to them. In the closed-source world, if a cracker finds an undisclosed vulnerability, he can sit on it longer without worrying about other people finding it out than he could if he were exploiting open-source software.

Also, the use of software repositories is an important security feature in Ubuntu, since the vast majority of applications get installed from a centralized, trusted location that would be extremely difficult to attack remotely. This is a lot safer than installing stuff from random places on the Internet.

So Linux is hardly 100% safe exploits, but it's better than Windows (and in many respects OS X, which despite being Unix-based also suffers from a lot of the same problems inherent in the closed-source model), even if it were more popular.

[savagenator]

Having the code might make it easier for malicious users to find vulnerabilities, but on the other hand, it makes it more likely that vulnerabilities will be found and patched by good people before the crackers get to them. In the closed-source world, if a cracker finds an undisclosed vulnerability, he can sit on it longer without worrying about other people finding it out than he could if he were exploiting open-source software.

I have a counter argument: what if the attackers were the programmers themselves, and set up a malicious section of code in their program that they are patching?

And also, the attacks on Vista are starting to be more system based, like I said before. More attacks are on vulnerabilities and exploits, whereas it used to be much more on running the software as administrator.

[p_quarles]

Closed source code has never been demonstrated to have any kind of security advantage over open source code. The fact is, if you hide the source code, you are also hiding the possible exploits from general public view. When the source code is open, exploits tend to get patched more quickly.

Furthermore: *nix systems are not widely used in desktop environments. They still hold, however, the majority share in the server market. If there were something inherently insecure about the openness of Linux and/or BSD source code, it would have been amply demonstrated by now.

A good discussion of security in *nix:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=694198

[savagenator]

These arguments are pretty good, and I am inclined to agree with you. Until we get to coding again:

As we get more people into Linux. there will be many many many more programmers. These programmers may want to send out a program as fast as they can so it can be implemented. With speed comes bugs, exploits, and bloatedness.

Do you think Linux will become bloated and messy as this starts to happen?

[antisocialist]

nope because it comes out every six months or so, and there arent any giant changes, mainly just updated software and repos, with some differences here and there, like driver support and stuff.

[pytheas22]

Do you think Linux will become bloated and messy as this starts to happen?

First of all, more users doesn't necessarily mean more programmers. As it is, there is rapid development of the kernel and many Linux distributions; if Linux's market share increases, it will be thanks to more "non-technical" users, not programmers. It's true that a larger Linux user-base would attract more professional programmers to write software for Linux, but I don't think that their work would necessarily be rushed or of low quality, unless you think that the majority of software for more popular platforms is bloated (some of it surely is, not all of it).

More importantly, one of the greatest benefits of open-source is that if software is bloated and inefficient, anyone can easily improve it and release a better version. So even if Linux did become bloated, lots of people could work to correct it. Under Windows or OS X, there's little you can do if your operating system or applications are poorly written besides hope that the developers will improve them, which they have little incentive to do, since you've already bought the program (and in a lot of cases didn't have a choice--or at least didn't know you had a choice--in the first place).

[L815]

From stereotypical terms , "leet hackers" use linux to do the work against other machines. So I don't see how it could ever get as out of hand as it would with windows :P

And to think Vista took 4 years for some MINOR improvements, while Ubuntu has been on the scene less time than WIndow's lifespan, and it's already catching up fast.
Open source + a dedicated user base, helpful users, and unlimited options... I see something great here :)

[antisocialist]

From stereotypical terms , "leet hackers" use linux to do the work against other machines. So I don't see how it could ever get as out of hand as it would with windows :Pdude we are 1337 h4x0r2 not leet hackers :D

And to think Vista took 4 years for some MINOR improvements, while Ubuntu has been on the scene less time than WIndow's lifespan, and it's already catching up fast.vista took 7 years, xp was in 2001 and vista was released on my birthday in 07, so 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 and first month of 2007.
Open source + a dedicated user base, helpful users, and unlimited options... I see something great here :)

not completely unlimited, you can't get a windows virus ;)

[savagenator]

dude we are 1337 h4x0r2 not leet hackers :D


:P Then let Linux become a monopoly over the world of computers.

Thank you for all your replies. I am starting to think that truly Linux will not falter over the years!

[antisocialist]

I am sure that someone could pull off a virus that would do some damage, but I doubt most users would be stupid enough to give it there password

[deepclutch]

what about viruses(worms or whatever!:D ) which does elf injection :confused:
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/resource_files/documentation/virus-writing-HOWTO/_html/index.html

[smartboyathome]

what about viruses(worms or whatever!:D ) which does elf injection :confused:
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/resource_files/documentation/virus-writing-HOWTO/_html/index.html

The simple fact of a script having to be made executable before it can be run prevents this.

[eldragon]

And to think Vista took 4 years for some MINOR improvements, while Ubuntu has been on the scene less time than WIndow's lifespan, and it's already catching up fast.

well, you talk about ubuntu as if it started from a blank floppy disk to what it is today.

you are forgetting everything started about 15 years ago. and not 4 years ago with warthy warhog

the fact that everything is open, made ubuntu possible in 4 years,

anyway, it doesnt take any credit off the ubuntu team, who single handed created the distribution of choice for most of us. got big players in the hardware market to sell preinstalled linux, and made the desktop scene visible to kernel developers in 4 years