Viruses: Windows vs. Linux

[alexander]

yeah, i finally found the article i was looking for for that, anyhow, to all the skeptical Windows folk who think that if other OSes are just as volnurable as Windows, here is a decent explanation on why exactly it is that you are wrong!

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

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by alexander

yeah, i finally found the article i was looking for for that, anyhow, to all the skeptical Windows folk who think that if other OSes are just as volnurable as Windows, here is a decent explanation on why exactly it is that you are wrong!

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

Its not that Linux is just as vulnerable, its that as Linux spreads it will become more vulnerable. The thing that makes microsoft most vulnerable, its homogeneity, is slowly shrinking as windows users switch away from word and internet explorer to other word processors, web browsers, and email programs. Meanwhile, as Linux becomes more popular, more "easy to use" versions are coming out for the casual computer user, which will make social engineering for virus distribution easier. Will viruses in Linux ever be as large a problem as they are for windows right now? Probably not. Will more viruses show up for Linux as its popularity grows? Almost certainly.
-Will

[rockytriton]

They complain that windows allows users to do certain things (like open a file from an email) and that is bad, so what, they dumb down the feature because of idiots and now I have to save the file first and then run it?

Another thing they talk about is how linux runs on different platforms so the "executable" won't execute on all platforms. This is just plain bs because a shell script with "rm -rf ~" would run on any platform.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Its not that Linux is just as vulnerable, its that as Linux spreads it will become more vulnerable.

Not really true. Linux installs as a multiuser system out of the box, creating a root account and a user account that the user uses for normal computer use. Root access is required to attack the OS but the common Linux user must SU to root with the root password to alter his/her own system. A virus would need to gain root access on every system to spread the way windows virii do and that would require everyone to use the same root password. As Linux spreads it will become a more favored target by the virus writers but it won't necessarily become anymore vulnerable.

[rockytriton]

I remember a few years back you could gain root access just by a bad printf statement in a version of BSD, a friend of mine used it to hack his ISP and got banned.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by alexander

yeah, i finally found the article i was looking for for that, anyhow, to all the skeptical Windows folk who think that if other OSes are just as volnurable as Windows, here is a decent explanation on why exactly it is that you are wrong!

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

I don't know any M$ groupies. People who stick with Winblows just aren't capable of using something more complex, or they don't want to give up certain programs. We are just born into it and given no alternatives, so to speak, alot like living in a third-world dictatorship.

I have to make sure Qwest DSL works with Linux (and gather the tedious details) before I'll switch.

[rockytriton]

Originally Posted by Southtown

People who stick with Winblows just aren't capable of using something more complex, or they don't want to give up certain programs.

or they must use it at work, or they have the desire to keep up with knowledge of the desktop OS that 90% of the world uses, or they have no desire to run a server OS as a desktop OS, or 15,000 other valid reasons. Not everyone who uses windows is just stupid despite what all the linux kids think.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Southtown

People who stick with Winblows just aren't capable of using something more complex, or they don't want to give up certain programs. We are just born into it and given no alternatives, so to speak, alot like living in a third-world dictatorship.

Sorry southy but this is BS (yeah I said it... ). I use Windows because I own a PC and use a lot of *expensive* music software which will not run on Linux. I have Linux installed but have neither the time nor the patience to configure it to run my software, and none of my sequencers run in Linux anyway so I wouldn't get very far.

Most of my software does however work fine on Mac OSX, so I have a PowerBook as well, since I am allowed to have two installations of most of my stuff.

Comparing this to third-world dictatorship is, uhm, perhaps a tad over board?

Anyway my wife also prefers windows not because Linux is difficult but because she simply feels at home with it. So does that make her a M$ Groupie? Do you think she even cares???

Keep singing the Open Source songs but sometimes it is as if I am hearing lots of Americans singing "Buy Japanese Cars Because American Cars Use More Gas". Why do people bother so much about OS but ignore stuff like...where is the PC manufactured? How much does this process pollute? etc etc. Now that's more relevant stuff IMHO.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by rocky

Another thing they talk about is how linux runs on different platforms so the "executable" won't execute on all platforms. This is just plain bs because a shell script with "rm -rf ~" would run on any platform

hey, they are correct about the binary, actually a binary compiled on the same laptop as mine by another person wont run on my system, so pbttt... As to "rm -rf ~" first of all if you execute it as user, you delete their home folder, yeah info is lost, but your computer still works, backup and in a few minutes you are back up, and in order to harm a linux system, "rm -rf /" but that will only work as root, and unless you are stupid enought to run programs as root, that can not be done, without a rootkit, that you cant run as user because of permissions. and if you do run programs as root, it is your own damn fault that your computer broke.

Originally Posted by T

patience to configure it to run my software, and none of my sequencers run in Linux anyway so I wouldn't get very far.

so are you saying its your fault ? are those hardware sequencers T? what kind?

And this is for everyone, Linux is easier to learn and use then Windows is, unlike windows, Linux makes sense so it is easier to pick up, there no obfuscating registry and nothing of that nature, and there are plentu of GUIs designed to be sensible and easy to use for users, unlike explorer, so... that should stop some arguments...

[rockytriton]

Originally Posted by alexander

hey, they are correct about the binary, actually a binary compiled on the same laptop as mine by another person wont run on my system, so pbttt... As to "rm -rf ~" first of all if you execute it as user, you delete their home folder, yeah info is lost, but your computer still works, backup and in a few minutes you are back up, and in order to harm a linux system, "rm -rf /" but that will only work as root, and unless you are stupid enought to run programs as root, that can not be done, without a rootkit, that you cant run as user because of permissions. and if you do run programs as root, it is your own damn fault that your computer broke.

Yes of course on the binary side, but on the other stuff........ So you say that if a linux user runs as root then they are stupid enough to deserves what happens and it's not the OS's fault? Ok, I agree with that, but why not the same on the windows side? In Windows 2000, Xp, etc, you can create a user that does not have administrator privs, and you can make sure they only have access to their home folder for writing, so why not blame the user and OS if a user runs a program as administrator?