regarding viruses attacks less in linux

[rraj.be]

generaly there is a opinion that linux bases os's are not much infected by virus or spy ware as windows get.I am a new guy to ubuntu and linux.

could any one give me in depth reason for this......
if possible please mail it to *removed*

[Ub1476]

1) Noone makes virus for Linux.

2) Linux is just safer compared to Vista, regarding viruses/spyware etc.

3) If you have a dual-boot you need anti-virus. This is to protect Windows (you can get virus on Linux, but it wont infect it, just jump to Windows).

If you're scared of hacking atempts, install Firestarter.

[timcredible]

short explanation is that windows is a single-user system modified for multiple users, which leaves 'administrator' account vulnerable, whereas linux/unix is a multi-user system which leaves 'root' account strong. in depth reasons are on the web, do a search.

[kestrel1]

Firestarter is only a frontend for the built in firewall in Ubuntu. You should only need Firestarter if you want to configure the firewall (iptables) The firewall just works in the background.

[~LoKe]

1) Noone makes virus for Linux.

Not true. Linux is often the target for attacks, including viruses. The major difference is Linux generally has a permission system in place to ensure that nothing can spread to critical areas.

2) Linux is just safer compared to Vista, regarding viruses/spyware etc.

Vista/Windows XP can be exceptionally secure, if you know what you're doing. The main difference is still the permission system, which could be "partially" solved by running Windows and using an account that doesn't have administrator access.

This is to protect Windows (you can get virus on Linux, but it wont infect it, just jump to Windows).

Not sure where you heard that, but no virus will spread from Linux to Windows.

If you're scared of hacking atempts, install Firestarter

Firestarter is just a graphical interface for IPTables.

[aysiu]

1. Most Windows users use Windows XP and operate as administrator, because the way XP is set up, it's too much trouble to run as a limited user.

2. There is a higher percentage of Windows users who are not computer savvy and thus are more susceptible to social engineering, which is how a lot of breaches in security happen.

3. Windows is a bigger target on the desktop/laptop scene and has more malware produced for it (almost the computer equivalent of living in a "bad neighborhood").

[philinux]

Have a glance at this.

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security

[kwacka]

The 'if linux had as many users as windows it would have the same problems' argument has little (if any) validity, its down to how the system works. There are virii for linux, but they are generally not too effective.

The major problem with Windows is that any application can automatically install itself (don't know about Vista, but prior to this it was open) in linux you need to tell it to install - unless you log on with root privileges, of course.

Another problem is that Windows identifies a file's format by its extension AND by default hides the extension.

A virus could install itself to a user's account, but what can it do there? It can't propogate itself - the worst that can happen is that user could possibly use some data - but all other users can be safe.

See:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10...ndows_viruses/

[jeffus_il]

Also the virus writers are hackers who are more likely to be sympathetic to Linux

[LowSky]

Not sure where you heard that, but no virus will spread from Linux to Windows.
.

But a linux machine can play host to a windows virus, which can infect windows mahines. a user could potentially download a windows virus that will do nothing in linux but if a windows computer accesses that drive it could end up harming windows.