Ubuntu/Linux/Windows and Viruses/Malware

[weasel fierce]

Well, its hardly a surprise that even casual internet browsing is likely to earn a few sneaky things with IE, as well as the everpresent threat of vira.

I know that Linux is considerably more safe, but being the n00b I am, Im not sure entirely why.. except that more vira is targeted at windows.
But if the same people sat down, and decided to deliberately go after Linux machines, would it be as easy ?

Same goes for spyware ?


Please dont think that I am trolling or trying to start arguments, Im genuinely wondering about the hows and why's of all this.

Cheers
Ivan

[sapo]

If i never used linux in my life.. now i would ask you:

What is a spyware? and whats is this virus stuff?

But as i was a windows user i could say...

You will forget what those 2 words means in a very short time after you switch to linux

[bored2k]

Originally Posted by sapo If i never used linux in my life.. now i would ask you: What is a spyware? and whats is this virus stuff? But as i was a windows user i could say... You will forget what those 2 words means in a very short time after you switch to linux

Simply put: while the world was going bananas with worm.blaster, the Linux community was out having Sundaes and Milk Shakes (I was having a Yogurt .. Sapo was smoking of course).

[weekend warrior]

4 points to consider:

1. MS code is closed, all the more easy to hide malware. Not so in Linux

2. MS botched the root/user paradigm in Windows, it's practically impossible to run as a limited priviledges user. All those users running as root brings joy to virus writers, so easy to take full control. Not so in Linux.

3. Windows doesn't do a good job separating core and apps. Virus writers must love this, so easy to write and install an app to change the core codebase and bring the whole system down. Not so in Linux.

4. MS does an apalling job addressing security issues, seemingly preferring to cover them up or deny them as long as possible to avoid "bad press", then taking ages to resolve them. (See here). Not so in Linux.

So even though Linux now enjoys security through (relative) obscurity, the very design of Linux makes it much harder to bundle spyware or write viruses for it. Also Linux has a lot of good faith built up amongst the code writing literate, particulary the young and angry/mischevious/bored ones. Not so for MS!

Though only time will answer your question for certain.

[az]

"So even though Linux now enjoys security through (relative) obscurity, the very design of Linux makes it much harder to bundle spyware or write viruses for it. Also Linux has a lot of good faith built up amongst the code writing literate, particulary the young and angry/mischevious/bored ones. Not so for MS!"

Well, I dunno about that. I think linux is very prevalent on servers (70 per cent of internet servers are using apache) How many viruses and security issues have the Microsoft company's server products had?

If you want to gain access to a huge number of credit card numbers or spy on millions of people, apache (linux, Open Source software) is a much bigger target than Microsoft.

People do not aim for Microsoft because they hate microsoft, but because they are an easier target.

Yes, I know! You do not run the same kind of software on a server that you do on a desktop, but my point is that apache has been on top for years and no one has been able to hit it with anything. That demonstrates the point that OSS is secure by default. The fact that there are fewer linux desktops is a less compelling argument.

[poofyhairguy]

Originally Posted by azz Yes, I know! You do not run the same kind of software on a server that you do on a desktop, but my point is that apache has been on top for years and no one has been able to hit it with anything. That demonstrates the point that OSS is secure by default. The fact that there are fewer linux desktops is a less compelling argument.

The "not run as administrator all the time" is the safest thing about Ubuntu. I know Windows technically can do it...but many programs break if you are not an admin (programs that shouldn't need admin access).

[Takis]

Originally Posted by azz That demonstrates the point that OSS is secure by default.

Would you say it's secure more because it's open source, or because it's good design? While open source is definitely a bonus, I think that good design is by far the bigger factor.

[Kvark]

Viruses can cause harm to linux users. Consider the following scenario....

You get a word document with a macro virus and open it... nothing happens, openoffice ignores the macro virus. You continue on the document and write some more text and stuff without noticing anything. Then you send it to a windows using friend. He trusts you and opens the word document... and gets nailed. Then your windows using friend realizes he didn't backup all his warez and whatever else windows users love. So he comes over to your house and kicks your ***.



Disclaimer: Don't go open loads of fishy word documents now. I've been told several times openoffice ignores macro viruses but haven't tried it myself so can't be 100% sure.

[kamaboko]

Originally Posted by weekend warrior 4 points to consider: 1. MS code is closed, all the more easy to hide malware. Not so in Linux 2. MS botched the root/user paradigm in Windows, it's practically impossible to run as a limited priviledges user. All those users running as root brings joy to virus writers, so easy to take full control. Not so in Linux. 3. Windows doesn't do a good job separating core and apps. Virus writers must love this, so easy to write and install an app to change the core codebase and bring the whole system down. Not so in Linux. 4. MS does an apalling job addressing security issues, seemingly preferring to cover them up or deny them as long as possible to avoid "bad press", then taking ages to resolve them. (See here). Not so in Linux. So even though Linux now enjoys security through (relative) obscurity, the very design of Linux makes it much harder to bundle spyware or write viruses for it. Also Linux has a lot of good faith built up amongst the code writing literate, particulary the young and angry/mischevious/bored ones. Not so for MS! Though only time will answer your question for certain.

I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a competent source for any information.

[jgrabham]

Originally Posted by kamaboko I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a competent source for any information.

But it runs on te same principle as open source!