Viruses and Market Dominance - Myth or Fact?

rocketjam writes "An article at The Register, authored by Scott Granneman of SecurityFocus, examines the conventional wisdom that if Linux or Mac OS X were as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms. Mr. Granneman bluntly says this is wrong, then proceeds to detail the fundamental differences between those OS's and Windows which make Windows an easy and inviting target for virus-writers, as opposed to the Unix-based platforms."

Comments

What about r00tkits?

[Leme]

He says "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux."

What about root kits? I would consider that a virus, not technically speaking, but it's still along the same lines.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[BagOBones]

A virus is self replicating.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[demaria]

Rootkits are probably more like a trojan than virus.

Personally, I consider viruses, worms and trojans to all fall into the same genus. The differences between the three aren't too important and blurry anyways. They are all hostile code that can affect any system.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[SquadBoy]

Who is to say that r00tkits are not? Maybe they are the really smart ones just using the kiddies as hosts. Every think of that smarty smarty go to a party?

Re:What about r00tkits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article. To get a rootkit requires you to be socially engineered... or for you to be using a horribly insecure daemon. Also, it is a bad idea to give accounts to un-trusted parties on a system that you have not configured for such activities. But, back on topic. You have to download, chmod, and then run any rootkit in the exact same way you would have to run a virus.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

There is a BIG difference between a rootkit and a virus. A rootkit is injected manually by a human being AFTER they burrow through an exploit.

If that is your definition of a virus, you might as well lump NT crack and the windows 2000 installation CD as Viruses.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[fupeg]

You have been socially engineered by Microsoft to think that such things as one-click installs are necesarry and desirable. You have been brainwashed to believe that "if it's not as easy as possible, then it is too hard."

Even if you think that one-click installs are necesarry, take a look at MacOS. It allows for one-click installs, but if you the program is going to change OS code/settings, then you are warned about it and prompted for a password (a la sudo.) Of course the MS-programming-kernel that used to be your brain will probably respond that having to put in a password makes the OS "broken" ...

Imagine some software engineer saying "hey you know what would make things really easy for our users, if we could remotely take control of their computers, install patches/extensions, and optimize some of their hardware settings." There you go. That could make installing/setting up/maintaining complex software so much easier, right? Hey there are some really obvious security implications, but eaiser is always better right?

Re:What about r00tkits?

[d3faultus3r]

broken? how so? Preventing users from installing stuff is extremely useful on a multiuser system. I've seen way too many networked windows boxes with just about every piece of spyware, adware and other useless crap installed on it to believe that letting the average user install anything they want is a good thing. Just because users want to be able to install anything on their computer with no safeguards doesn't mean it's a good idea. The current system isn't broken, it was put there to prevent exactly what has happened on Windows boxes.
Most Unices are good about preventing average users from accessing the core files in the OS, whereas Windows just puts a nice little warning on the screen and lets you go right ahead.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[jidar]

a rootkit isn't even marginally similar to the others in that rootkits are ran deliberately by a local assailant. They don't propogate by any means and you are never tricked into running them. They really have nothing to do with this topic.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[CompMD]

I disagree. I am familiar with higher-education institutions that have had their netblocks scanned, then the linux boxes matching certain criteria were examined and attacked based on known exploits. There was no social engineering required, nor were they horribly insecure...there's still a heck of a lot of people using apache 1.3.x without all the patches, and if a script kiddie can compromise your system at that point, he's won half the battle. From there it is a trivial joke for them to get and execute a rootkit on your system. With some of the kits out there, you'd never even know it unless you had tripwire or were just a hell of a sysadmin. If it were up to me, I would say that a rootkit is in its own category in that it uses properties normally attributed to viruses and trojans. On the trojan side, you actually have to run the kit on the machine you want to attack. On the virus side, the kit will usually modify some important system code (like the kernel) in order for it to achieve its purpose. From there, it can allow someone to run anything (including services over tcp/ip) usually unbeknownst to the actual administrator and almost definitely unknown to the users. This activity is very similar to a trojan. So, given that information, it seems difficult in my mind to not classify rootkits by themselves. I do agree that viruses, worms, trojans, and rootkits all can be considered to be of the same genus of malicious code that can affect anyone.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[TnkMkr]

I would disagree with you and say that one-click installs and easy as possible software is necessary to be competitive, because not everyone who uses a tool will want to spend the time to learn the intricacies of the whole tool. And to a lot of people a computer is just a tool.

Or if it is social engineering to make people think things have to be easy have all the auto companies socially engineered the masses into thinking one key turn car starting is necessary, after all it would certainly make it harder to steal a car if you had to manually adjust your fuel system every time you start it. (Remember when we use to actually push down on the gas petal to start a car... imagine if you had to get out and adjust a carburetor, prime the system and hand crank it.)

It's not social engineering by MS (put the foil hat away). It is what people have wanted from technology since the begining, to be easy to use.

Now imagine a car company saying", hey wouldn't it be easier if we could remotely open, start or shutoff our users cars so we can help them if they need it."

Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.

Stop blaming poor computer security on making systems easier to use and put the blame where it belongs, on those who poorly implement their ideas(be it MS or anyone else).

Re:What about r00tkits?

[morcego]

I think he means that a rootkit is simply a virus whose medium is the people who install it.

You know, you just described a Trojan (Horse), not a Virus.

Unless, of couse, you mean stupid users are the real virus. In that case, I do have to agree with you :)

Re:What about r00tkits?

[Dun Malg]

Oh wait they did do that. How come I don't hear sudden stories about massive car thefts with remote devices that can do what the manufacturer does? Or cars that won't start because they are receiving an incorrect kill signal? Oh yeah, because in the effort to make things easier car companies took the time to make them secure.

[scoff!]
You think the reason car thieves haven't taken advantage of weaknesses in remote unlock systems is because they're so well designed? Think again, man. The reason no one's making black-market code-grabbers for remote door lock systems is because the slim-jim class of opening tools still work. There's no reason to attempt to exploit a complicated electronic system on the front door when the back door is secured with a plastic padlock labeled "do not cut off this padlock"! If you ask me, Windows is just like cars. They add on all sorts of fancy things but don't fix the security holes that are already there.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[pVoid]

The difference is humongous. It's not so blurry.

Let me break it down to you:

a trojan horse is code you run on your computer that doesn't do what you thought it did. In my opinion, these are mostly user stupidity.

a virus is code being injected into a program you run normally. How it gets there is not really part of 'viral activity'. Technically, we have very few virii left these days, most fall into the trojan horse category. Virii were especially popular back in the days of DOS, when modifying a file was rather easier than trying to hide it somewhere (just cause back then you had 3 files on a 5.25" floppy and a fourth file name "DOSKill.com" would arouse suspicion. (now, people just go ahead and hide a file deep inside the windows directory.

Worms on the other hand are completely external attacks. They propagate themselves without needing user help. Rootkits are 'manual worms'. Worms only work because of security flaws.

That's the main difference: virii can infect *any* system, so long as the user acts stupid enough. Worms can *only* infect systems which have flaws.

As far as I'm concerned virii are user responsability. I've never been infected with a virus or trojan horse (mainly because I never run as admin), and really a system is not really at fault if it gets a virus infection. It certainly can't be considered at fault for "making a virus writers job easier" by having easier APIs. After all, one of the ten security commandments are: If your enemy gets you to run code on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[Overly Critical Guy]

You have been socially engineered by Microsoft to think that such things as one-click installs are necesarry and desirable.

No, consumer feedback from years of user research has socially engineered Microsoft into believing it is necessary and desirable, because this is EXACTLY what people want.

Have you even tried running Windows post-NT without administrator privilegs, and how it also doesn't let you change things without an administrator password? Your post was just endless FUD spawned from a chip on your shoulder against Microsoft. It's okay; 90% of the posters here have that same chip. For them, using Linux is a catharsis of their reactionary hatred for Microsoft, and they love to talk about them endlessly.

All the while ignoring that--as Slashdot itself even reported--Linux is the most compromised system on the net. And with all the ssh/ssl vulnerabilities, many people have seen that Linux is not so golden and pristine, and that everything is insecure. It's just that Windows is everywhere on the desktop (and that won't change within the two years until Longhorn, no matter how many people try to spin it).

Re:What about r00tkits?

[Idarubicin]

Personally, I consider viruses, worms and trojans to all fall into the same genus. The differences between the three aren't too important and blurry anyways. They are all hostile code that can affect any system.

Hrm. That sounds a little like saying that it's not important for the lay public to know the differences between real (biological) viruses and bacteria--they're both hostile organisms that make us sick, right?

All well and good until you have people with rhinoviruses going to the doctor and demanding antibiotics.

Sure, simplify the details--most people don't need to know every little thing about the mechanisms by which hostile code operates. Still, it is very important for even novice computer users to understand the various ways that their otherwise very vulnerable Windows boxes can be compromised.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[pVoid]

Yeah, but:

software installation isn't a daily chore.

that some software you talk about unfortunately sucks, and should be pressured (by voting with dollars, or by complaining) to be fixed. Blaming OS is not the solution. Said software would run improperly on any system that has a security subsystem.

PS. as much as it is a PITA for me to run as non admin too, I do get by. Here's two pieces of advice:

Shift right clicking on an executable will allow you to "Run As...". You can't complain about that because it's basically the equivalent of typing su in *nix and then typing your password. And with WindowsXP they've even made it intelligent enough that the interactive user's environment is loaded.

Also, the only time you really do need to run as power user or admin is if you want to attach debuggers to other process. Now, I think it's not well known by most people, but in WinXP, you still have the plain vanilla user managment MMC. By default now, users are in the Users group (where as in NT/2k they were in Power Users). You can always add users to the power user group in XP. You can also grant SE_DEBUG_PRIVILEDGE manually to a user group via the security policy manager.

Last point is loading device drivers. Again only Power Users and up can do that... and you can make yourself a power user, but you should realize you are basically allowing any code to tamper with your kernel by having this priviledge - use at your own discretion. Again, normal programs shouldn't have to load device drivers. The only real annoying thing I've seen is software that requires dongles... But even then, they generally run a seperate service with a different user credential that is in charge of loading the DevDriv.

All in all, really, there is absolutly no excuse for running as admin.

Re:What about r00tkits?

[hughk]

You on the other hand have been socially engineered by Linux zealots to think that people who don't want to spend 38 consecutive hours to get their system up and working are idiots.

Time to install RH 9.0 Linux with Apache, SQL and development tools and patch to date: 3 hrs. Time to install Windows 2K Server + IIS, MS-SQL Server and IIS and patch up to date. One day minimum and the process of patching isn't so automated (lots of separate downloads).

'nuff said?

Oh and up2date at least uses signatures. The aptget repositories often do not. Btw, I *have* installed quite a lot on Win with very restricted rights What is this administrator or power-user, you only need this if you need to update system binaries or registery keys.

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

by Anonymous Coward on 05:25 PM October 6th, 2003 (#7148096)
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

And they all stink.

yes, but the effect might be different

[civilengineer]

there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms Probably, there would be as many viruses written, or more, but the effect of the viruses would have been different. As to whether the effects would have been not as bad, equal or worse is difficult to answer.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[pebs]

Take a look at this somewhat related article. It looks almost like its a response to reading Slashdot and responding with a troll.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[flossie]

It was a really good bit of writing until it started going out on a limb to attack Karl Marx and communism half way down the second page. It got a bit predictable there, I wasn't really very surprised to see the old Linux=Communism=Bad equation popping up on the third page.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[_Sprocket_]

That article may just be the sanest thing I have ever read out of this whole sorry mess.

An article that links Windows exploits and theft of code as a reflection of Open Source is the sanest thing you've read about this incident? What other black-helicopters-from-Open-Source-world stories have you been reading?

The author of this article does not understand the culture nor history of what he criticizes. Or he understands it well enough to know what buttons to push.

Misguided. Maybe sociopathic. Hardly sane.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[TaraByte]

I think the author declaring P2P as "terrorism" is a bit harsh. While he has some interesting points, copyright violation is not theft, as it does not take away the the ability of the original owner to use the product. Also many who download on P2P download things they never would actually spend money purchasing, and there are many examples where downloads actually lead to purchase. I can see where copyright violation can be a bad thing, however the actual damage caused has been seriously blown out of proportion.

His other point in comparing linux to communism is really silly. Those who participate freely give their time to the project, and very few actually are trying to "break" capitalism in some way; they simply want an alternative. It is about freedom to choose another solution to a problem, it does not force people to stop using other software.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[incom]

That article has all the typical anti-linux trolls rolled into one, along with several new ones. For example to those who don't feel like reading it, he compares linux users to terrorists and communists all in the same article. He also blames the majority of viruses and malicious hackers on linux, and p2p software theft as something caused by the linux community. Truly an overdramatized troll.

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[Xerithane]

It was a really good bit of writing until it started going out on a limb

I think that was the first sentence:

On one level, blaming Microsoft for the virus attacks is much like blaming the engineers of the World Trade Center for 911.

It could be analogous to blaming the engineers if they had painted a big target on sensitive areas of the building, and provided planes a lighted approach for hitting them.

But, it gets even better:

Why put all the blame the attacked, and spare the attacker? If someone shoots you, do the police arrest you for not wearing a Kevlar vest? No, they go after the people with the gun.

When are you notified that you may need a kevlar vest? Again, this would be a more fitting analogy if the person not wearing a vest was in, say.. Iraq 8 months ago and had a US Army emblem stitched on their uniform. If you buy software, I think it's a reasonable expectation that it won't be broken due to negligence. If I purchased a car, I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out the company made it very easy to open it without my keyless entry fob. That's a much more fitting analogy. Analogies suck to argue with, so lets just keep on the real subject:

It should come as very little surprise that when you have a culture that demonizes Microsoft, largely because they're more successful with Joe Sixpack than your side, that some will go beyond that.

Yes, this is why we demonize Microsoft. Not because they violate HTTP, SSL, CSS, and countless other standards. Not because they violate business laws, and are sued for it. We demonize them because they attract idiots better than us. I'm glad he cleared that up for me, because I was wondering why I didn't run Windows. It's not just my surprise, Ed has one too:

It should come as very little surprise that when you have a culture that justifies, even glorifies theft from the big guy, that people start taking from the smaller fry.

I suppose I'm part of the culture, and I don't glorify nor justify. In fact, I say it's wrong. So do a lot of people. So, again, half-baked claims with no factual backing. Yes, I'm sure several people did say that Half-Life will now have Linux binaries. If any of them said it seriously, I doubt they have the capabilities to build them anyway. Any joke taken out of context can make someone look like a dick. Or a Communist, right Ed?

"From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs"
Karl Marx said that, and it fits these extremists and their fellow-travellers to a T. Come to think of it, if you asked regular thieves how the world should be, they'd say pretty much the same thing, too.

I didn't realize that thieves were happy only getting what they need and no more. Perhaps you should ask Microsoft since it's documented that they have stolen a few things. I can definitely see how they take only what they need. Like $40B in cash reserves.

But when we talk about P2P, that's when Communism really rears it's ugly head. Not Capitalism and market dominance nor supply and demand, which is the very cornerstone of capitalist economics:

And what's the replacement [to the RIAA], the better world? It sure isn't better for the artists. Call the RIAA and Company slavemasters, but at least slave owners fed and housed their slaves.

The replacement to the RIAA? I'm not sure, how about CDBaby or the other houses that are opening up? Why are there so many famous artists that loathe the RIAA? How many famous artists have you sat down and talked to about record contracts. I can name one, and he makes more money now touring as a legendary band (from the 60s) than he ever did from his 6 platinum records. Even he wants to get on the internet distribution bandwagon. But,

Re:yes, but the effect might be different

[ergo98]

" so, from what this article is saying, lets add more steps and go the complicated way. Thats not what needs to happen."

This is exactly what the article seems to be saying -- the author is trying to make lemonade out of lemons that a lack of functionality entails.

This article is generally clueless, and often contradictory, claptrap. It's hardly surprizing that it was "published" on the Register. Let me summarize the article:

-Linux is more secure because it has less features, forcing the user through more steps to accomplish what they are trying to do, thereby weeding out the clueless.

-Linux is more secure because most clueful admins run as non-root, while most Windows boxes run as admins. Of course when user friendliness comes into play, users end up running as root too (Lindows).

-Windows sucks because it pushes code and component reuse, such as the use of Internet Explorer as the HTML rendering engine in Outlook and Outlook Express. This is unlike Linux, oh except for Konquerer and Mozilla that both use modern software reuse, but they're better anyways.

What is the point of this article? If he simply wants to say "Linux users in general are more clueful", or "lack of features keep out the clueless", or "Linux software is just written better", then he could just say that. Instead it's some ramblings that don't add up. Real security is something like the sandboxed Java or .NET environments, not the fact that your email client is telnet and you don't know how chmod works.

his worst argument...

[BobTheLawyer]

is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.

And the network effect he mentions is really just a more sophisticated version of the "everybody uses Windows" argument he disparages.

I'm not qualified to comment on his technical arguments...

Re:his worst argument...

[Killean]

Yeha, I love this quote:

Further, due to the strong community around Linux, new users will receive education and encouragement in areas such as email security that are currently lacking in the Windows world, which should help to alleviate any concerns on the part of newbies.

Yeah right. I garuntee if my Mom started using Linux all she'd be doing the same things she's doing now. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them check if it's contaminated first...

Re:his worst argument...

[Dark Paladin]

I would state that it depends on the distrubution.

For example, OS X installs the first user as an Administrator (though several tasks require they enter their password as a sort of sudo command - but most users would simply do so without thinking of the consequences).

The last time I installed Red Hat (7.2 I believe), it had you set the root user, then create a new normal user - assuming the user logs in as themselves, and not root, then the protections will work.

I think the best note is "if users act like they should" (which is easier in an office environment than a home one), then virses onto UNIX based systems (GNU/Linux, BSD, or otherwise) won't get very far and will find quick death if spread using the standard "social engineering" ways of the MS Windows world.

The difference between UNIX systems and Windows ones is that there are fewer protections on Windows to prevent System-level commands from being run. On a UNIX box, if I'm signing on as me (non-admin type), then I can feel pretty good about general security. If I'm on a Windows box, I'm going to have to be double cautious with everything that crosses my email or my browser - whether I actively run it or not.

So I'd say he made some fallacies, but overall his point is more correct than the cries of "Well, there are less viruses on GNU/Linux and OS X because nobody runs it! Nyah!"

Re:his worst argument...

[TheFrood]

is that the relative difficulty a newbie has doing things in Linux makes it more secure.

So you're saying that Linux should make it easier for users to run scripts and executeables they receive in the mail?

TheFrood

Re:his worst argument...

[gazbo]

Yup, the guy's a moron. I was expecting to have to work to dipute his claims, but he's really laid it on a plate - I don't know where to start, so I'll go randomly:

• On MS software making social engineering more easy, he talks about how it's so easy to infect users through Outlook, because it allows immediate execution of attachments on preview, whereas Linux clients don't. Ex-fucking-quse me? Don't you think it a little disingenuous to strongly imply that this is a stupid MS feature rather than documented bugs? Shoddy coding undeniably, but what he's implying? No way.

  In fact, the way he's written it, if I were to hack up a linux mail client that automatically set the executable bit of an attachment, but also contained a bug that meant it could be done in preview, I would have disproven the entire section. That should give an idea of the validity of that tripe.
  

• Which leads onto the next thing. He's claiming that Linux is more secure because it forces users to jump through hoops; that's right, you can't infect yourself because you don't know how to set the executable bit. Does the man really not see that this fact is not statistically independent of the number of Linux boxes on users' desktops?
  
• But despite this, he's wrong anyway. I saw a Windows virus that made users jump through hoops - I forget which one, but it was one of the recent biggies. You got an email with a zip attachment. You had to load the zip, extract the executable, then run it. And he's telling me that setting an executable bit is too much effort? And just to reiterate, were Linux to be on everyone's desktop, there's be mail clients just lining up to set that pesky bit for you.
  
• Oh, but as he points out, the highly social community of linux users guarantee that people are well educated about these security issues.

  I don't even...the man...Look, the whole point is that he's trying to argue that it would be just as secure if it dominated the desktops of the world. Does he think there's some chemical in RedHat's cellophane wrap that makes people permanently give secure computing tips to an installed base of half a billion people? And a second chemical that makes everyone's grandma actually fucking listen?
  

• Root users. OK, he's actually getting dangerously close to something I can't outright mock him for. Yes, Windows does encourage, through indifference, users to do their work as root. Yes, Linux does the opposite. However, let's go back to when Linux is on these millions of grandparents' and managers' desktops: will they always work as a restricted user, having to switch user (and remember another, infrequently used password) in order to install the driver to their new scanner? Or will they just say "Oh, I don't bother with that fuss" and go round as root? Well, I think that Lindows, a distribution aimed at dumbing down Linux for the masses, and lambasted in the article for doing just that, might give us a clue.
  
• Oh yeah - Windows is insecure because x86 is a popular chipset. Good thinking batman.
  

That's enough bullet points for the time being. Please, people, if you're going to post a story about this, try and concentrate on maybe OSS having fewer bugs or something, hence being more secure. Sure I won't necessarily go along with it, but at least it won't come across as the incoherent ramblings of a 14 year old zealot like this does.

Re:his worst argument...

[mcdrewski42]

As far as I can determine from his article the synopisis is:

Some people say that number of virii per platform will be roughly equivalent to that platform's marketshare. They are wrong. Windows is different to the other platforms because:
1) On Windows, applications share architecture making cross-contamination easier.
2) On other platforms, there are more steps to perform to accomplish simple tasks than on Windows (implying that users really need to work at it to get infected).
3) On Windows platforms, most people run with admin rights because that's the default.
4) On Linux, most people don't because they're smart.

I have to say that I am an OSS advocate and Linux user, but I disagreed with almost everything this person says. To take his points on two basic levels:

1) The fact that 'consumer' applications and operating system are largely lumped together conceptually by users on Windows platforms is something the Linux community aspires to, not their key differentiator.

2) The idea that 'most' linux users don't run as root/admin, and 'most' Windows users do is not related to the operating system at all, but to the level of knowledge of each platform's user base. If Linux were to reach the unwashed masses' desktops then most there would either run as root, or have a very simple one-click method to run things as root (ie: to install stuff).

At the end of the day the social engineering of a trojan/virus on a linux box comes down to nothing more than writing a "hey check out this screensaver" perl script with an ascii encoded payload which prompts for the root password "to install it". Bada-boom, 'one-click' linux infection for the masses.

Re:his worst argument...

[M.C. Hampster]

If Linux were to reach the unwashed masses' desktops then most there would either run as root, or have a very simple one-click method to run things as root (ie: to install stuff).

Sounds like Lindows...

Re:his worst argument...

[harlows_monkeys]

If Linux were to reach the unwashed masses' desktops then most there would either run as root, or have a very simple one-click method to run things as root (ie: to install stuff)

I doubt it. Why would Linux go that route rather than doing it like OS X, which is essentially Unix for the "unwashed masses".

Re:his worst argument...

[dekashizl]

I do agree that Windows is sadly insecure. But... Most of the argument in this article are based on a fallacious view of computers as the same home-built hobby kits they were 30 years ago.

Analagous claim:
You are less likely to get food poisoning from home-cooking than eating in a restaurant.

Analagous argument:
It is more difficult to prepare a meal at home than to order one in a restaurant, therefore you are less likely to do it, and therefore less likely to get food-poisoning.

My response (to both article's and analagous argument):
I agree with the claim, but the fact that something is more difficult is not always a positive feature that is fundamental to that thing. By learning to cook or hiring a chef, home-cooked meals become easier. And by Linux software maturing beyond nerd-oriented "mail readers" into productivity suites that normal people will actually use (wherein you CAN actually click on something to run it without jumping through hoops with temp folders, chmods, and sus), so will Linux begin to fall victim to the same ease-of-use that the author holds in his crosshairs.

Re:his worst argument...

[nmos]

n the past year? Since NT3.5 (A staple on many corporate desktops for more than a couple of years) the admin/punter divide has been standard.

Which is why I said "any consumer Windows OS". The first NT based OS targeted at consumers (as opposed to businesses) was WinXP.

Yes, a lot of software assumes admin rights when it really has no place doing so (even OpenOffice for Windows requires Admin rights to install!) However, for a similar task under unix, try installing Perl and a bunch of CPAN modules on a per-user basis rather than a system-wide basis. (we do this a lot because different 3rd party apps require different perl versions). Don't even get me started on gcc.

I can see how this would be a problem for you, I've always thought of things like Perl & GCC as the sorts of things that would be installed system wide. Maybe VMware or User Mode Linux would be a better choice. I was thinking more in terms of installing programs as root/admin but still being usable by all users (complete with their own preferences etc) based on their login info. In *NIX almost everyone solves this in the same way, a single system wide preferences file plus a seperate set of preferences in the users home directory. At least in the case of Debian the packages also take care of making sure the programs appear in each users desktop/menues and lets you know if there might be permissions issues. It's not allways pretty but at least it's fairly consistant. With Windows apps, there doesn't appear to be any pattern at all. Some apps. just show up in the admins Start Menu while others show up for everyone. Some have seperate preferences for each users and some don't. A few want access to c:\windows whenever they run (or at least whenever you change anything) and some (most thankfully) don't. Some use the built in Windows facilities for profiles/preferences and some (most) use their own oddball method. Your right that the entire WinNT line of Windows has had all (or at least most) of the facilities to handle this stuff in a nice consistant manner but until recently the vast majority of users were still running Win9x/ME and even now these people still probably represent half or more of the Windows users. The whole thing tends to be self perpetuating, the developers get used to the programs they use behaving this way and the users are already used to it so nothing changes.

Re:his worst argument...

[CharlesEGrant]

On a UNIX box, if I'm signing on as me (non-admin type), then I can feel pretty good about general security

People keep saying this, but it totally ignores all of the escalation of privilege bugs that are floating around. See for example here for a recent example on OS X.

If an ordinary UNIX user can be tricked into running a program, that program can then look for one of the hundreds of common bugs that allow escalation of privilege, and then install itself as root. This can be prevented by keeping current on your patches, and being careful about your configurations, but then you can keep a Windows box relatively secure by the same process. The trouble is that it's a lot of work and seems to be beyond the resources of most casual users regardless of which OS they use.

I see the problem.

[Soulfader]

"Check out this wicked screensaver!!!! But it um, only runs as root, so you have to su first. Also, chmod and make it executable, please. Thanks!"

Operating System bugs vs Application level bugs

[kevin_conaway]

I think Windows systems suffer more from vulnerabilities at the operating system level (possibly because it tried to integrate so many things) than application level (though they do exist). In Unix like environments, it is the opposite. The operating system is generally secure against remote attacks but it is the applications that run on top of the OS that introduce vulnerabilities.

As long as there is software there will be bugs, no matter where it is run.

Re:Operating System bugs vs Application level bugs

[skurken]

As long as there is software there will be bugs, no matter where it is run.

I'm not so sure. Lots of errors are introduced simply because programmers write too much new code. Programmering as it is done today is not a branch of engineering, its a craft. One way to industrialize programming would be to go the same way as say civil engineering.

A civil engineer doesn't design new building elements each time she designs a new structure. Buildings and bridges are constructed from standardized elements with known characteristics and which can be manufactured efficiantly and with high quality.

Doing the same in programming would perhaps be along the lines of using higher level languages for application development, using real, standardized component frameworks with immutable components and perhaps use a bit of computer science and make (mathematically) sure that what we do will work.

All this will limit the flexibility that e.g. coding everything from scratch in C will give, but it could also help reducing the number of defects in common software. Bottom line is: if we want to be an industry, we better start behaving like one!

Linux Is Getting There, too!

[PRES_00]

Since many Linux distributions are trying hard to get convert desktop users, they are also diminishing the steps required for the launching of an executable virus thus, diminishing security.

If Linux becomes more popular, media recognition and increasingly "dumbed down" distros will make it a good platform virus writers.

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[JayBlalock]

It might make it easier for average users to infect themselves, BUT they won't spread it. Keep in mind, these days, most damage caused by viruses is secondary. SoBig didn't directly damage ANY computers - but it crippled a lot of networks and inboxes because of the huge load of mail it generates.

And that's what, as far as I know, NO ONE would manage to dumb Linux down to be able to do. All of the big virii like SoBig and Blaster rely on Microsoft's boneheaded insistance on cross-linking every program and giving everything full root rights. Did you know there's one theoretical expoit in Windows, thankfully not done yet, in which an MP3 could be given a corrupt header, which points IE to a virus online, and be activated simply on MOUSEOVER? No joke, it's out in MS's security updates archive.

So even if it becomes easier for lusers to infect themselves, the chances of an Internet crippling worm are FAR reduced. (and that's even assuming a few standardized builds; the huge multitude of programs available for Linux create a form of security through obscurity)

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[abeger]

My thoughts exactly. While I was reading his arguments, I was thinking "Y'know, half of these reasons are *why* more people don't use Linux...".

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[pla]

If Linux becomes more popular, media recognition and increasingly "dumbed down" distros will make it a good platform virus writers.

No.

The very fact that Unix-like OSs have a concept of a "root" account (which the Windows "equivalent", "administrator", does not even come CLOSE to matching in terms of actual separation of permissions), makes it all but invincible to virii.

Yes, if Linux becomes popular enough for virus authors to target it, we'll see a round of trojans using root exploits - But unlike Windows exploits, very few of these exist to start with, and they will (and do) get fixed within a few hours of discovery.

Actually, for that reason, I think more Linux virii would help Linux security overall, as it would expose those root exploits faster than we can discover them normally. Yeah, a few boxes would suffer, but the community as a whole would benefit.

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[BigBir3d]

My thoughts exactly. While I was reading his arguments, I was thinking "Y'know, half of these reasons are *why* more people don't use Linux...".

Ditto.

His argument boiled down to; linux is more secure because it is harder to deal with. By harder, I mean more steps (save, chmod, etc).

There are plenty of linux servers out there right now that have been 0wn3d by nefarious types, to do their bidding. spamhaus.inc doesn't just 0wn windows servers to do their bidding. But that is not a convenient argument, so I guess we shouldn't go there.

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[plam]

I was skeptical, so I used Google to look up said vulnerability. Huh. Good thing I don't use Windows!

Re:Linux Is Getting There, too!

[brettper]

You talk as if that's a bad thing. You WANT to make it difficult to run executable attachments.

No. What you want is to make running attached executables safe and secure. Running in a sandbox could be easy and safe, for instance. The sandbox could prevent access to the network and the local filesystem in the same way as Java's security model

Making it more complicated doesn't make it any safer, and once the user gets the steps to make an attachment under Linuz memorised it won't slow them down much even.

And seriously, how is zipping up an exe going to make it safer? - the user is still going to open it and run the contents.

Its all about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

For us oldsters, who were around when Microsoft finally woke up to the significance of the internet, the security problems that M$ faces coincide with their desire for market dominance.

MS quickly created some powerful internet enabled applications. Outlook is the best example. In order to provide so many 'innovative' goodies and features they had to sacrifice security. Deep system hooks and then trying to justify their inclusion of Internet Explorer forced them to tie IE deeply to the system. A great example of short term profiteering at the cost of long term credibility.

Just my opinion. But I am 37 and my degree is in International Relations!

ONE LOVE!

Grampy

Re:Unix-based ...

[bladernr]

Linux is not Unix-based.

I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but Linux is indeed UNIX-based. It is "inspired by" UNIX (as opposed to having code in common).

Linux uses all of the old UNIX concepts of fork(), inodes, etc. For non-UNIX inspired systems, see OS/400, VMS, etc. These do not have UNIX primatives.

As a Linux user, I am proud that Linux is a UNIX derived (at least in spirit) system. It has a base of history, knowledge and experience from which to build. Would starting purely from scratch be better? I hardly think so.

I learned UNIX programming on SunOS. My SunOS knowledge works just fine on Linux (although not on OS/400 and hardly on Windows... unless you count what little POSIX compliance they barely put in).

Long live UNIX/Linux!

But...

[The Gline]

Isn't the fact that Windows's vulnerabilities are well known a product of its widespread use? I mean, this just sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Not that it matters to those of us who never patch, no matter what OS you're running. I administer a Win2K based server that has remained stable because I patched it religiously and made sure that it was not easily compromised, and so far nothing has happened to it. (In fact, I had a "white hat" come in and try the usual round of exploits on the box, and none worked.)

OTOH, a friend of mine administering a Linux server was too busy bragging about his non-stop uptime to upgrade to a non-exploitable version of Apache and got his site defaced. Twice.

It's not the OS, it's what you do with it.

Re:But...

[Sevn]

Isn't the fact that Windows's vulnerabilities are well known a product of its widespread use? I mean, this just sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Nope. You should probably read the article. It explains the flaw in your logic. To save you some time, here are the relevant parts.........

We've all heard it many times when a new Microsoft virus comes out. In fact, I've heard it a couple of times this week already. Someone on a mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!"

Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this opinion. Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including ones who work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."

Mr. Clarke is wrong.

AND THESE BULLITS....

**Windows software is either executable or not, depending on the file extension. So if a file ends with ".exe" or ".scr", it can be run as a program (yes, of course, if you change a text file's extension from ".txt" to ".exe", nothing will happen, because it's not magically an executable; I'm talking about real executable programs). It's easy to run executables in the Windows world, and users who get an email with a subject line like "Check out this wicked screensaver!" and an attachment, too often click on it without thinking first, and bang! we're off to the races and a new worm has taken over their systems.

**Microsoft's email software is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email! Don't believe me? Take a look at Microsoft Security Bulletins MS99-032, MS00-043, MS01-015, MS01-020, MS02-068, or MS03-023, for instance. Notice that's at least one for the last five years. And though Microsoft's latest versions of Outlook block most executable attachments by default, it's still possible to override those protections.

**Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that's about it. So the above steps now become the following: read, save, become root, give executable permissions, run. The more steps, the less likely a virus infection becomes, and certainly the less likely a catastrophically spreading virus becomes.

Those are just a few points from the article. So the real issue has much less to do with market penetration and a lot more to do with Microsoft building an Operating system that seems to be meant to be insecure.

Re:Let's Keep the Party Going

[TooTechy]

Please. Let's just remove this comment.

Windows viruses and GNU/Linux

[ciaran_o_riordan]

RMS commented on this issue earlier this year:

There are several reasons why GNU/Linux has few viruses:

1. We designed the GNU system, from the outset in 1984, as a multi-user timesharing system with security features. An ordinary user cannot change the system software. Linux, Torvalds' 1991 kernel, followed this design as well.
2. We did not make the incredibly stupid decision to design applications so that they execute programs that arrive in the mail.
3. Free software developers seem to do a better job, overall. (This is the point that the Open Source Movement primarily focuses on. For us in the Free Software Movement, this is a nice bonus, but please mention that freedom is even more important.)
4. GNU/Linux is less popular than Windows and most virus developers target the more common system.

If everyone switches to GNU/Linux, reason 4 will go away, but not the others. Therefore, people can expect to have much fewer virus problems in a world of GNU/Linux users than then have now with Windows.

--END-OF-RMS-TEXT--

Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux

[realdpk]

Of course! I'm certain that once Linux is more popular than Windows, all of the people who used to code for Windows will simultaneously implode, preventing them from writing bad code on Linux.

Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Ah, the strawman. You're arguing against something he didn't say.

The platform isn't the issue. RMS said that Free Software developers seem to do a better job. This may be because of peer review, or even the threat of peer review etc.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux

[dh003i]

aside from the fact that no-one would use a program that requires to run as root, and e-mail programs with Outlooks crappy features would be exposed as worthless and not used.

Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux

[flossie]

That same programmer, once Windows is dead and buried, will still be around writing code

Yeah, but it probably won't be free code, and as we Linux users are all to cheap to pay for software, we should all be ok! :o)

Forget Windows

[mutewinter]

If people just stopped using Outlook and only used plain text email there'd be much less of a security problem... I doubt Gabe over at Valve is going to be using it again any time soon.

"Normal user"

[owlstead]

Luckily I've already responded to the author in person before this became /.ed.

As I've pointed out to the author, being just a "normal user" is enough to let the virus spread and to destroy the "normal" users documents.

I keep seeing this argument over and over again when talking about system stability. But my system would be next to useless if all my documents and configurations would be gone. Maybe it would be easier to recover from backup instead of a full reinstall, but that would be it.

Most pc's out there are single user (or single family) computers, instead of the old multi-user mainframes. All the important data are in reach of the virus.

If I get a response I will let you know...

Re:"Normal user"

[lhand]

Keep in mind that your losing all your files is a lot different than hosing the entire system. The virus that affected me (say from doing something silly like running an email attachment) does not affect other users of my system. (My wife and kids use my system too. Their data would remain secure.) Finally the *spread* of the virus would be hampered because the virus could only do what *I* can do, so binding arbritary ports, hijacking the web server, infecting critical system library components, is just not possible. The virus may still spread, but it is limited as to the infection vectors available to it.

Re:"Normal user"

[4lex]

The solution are backups. If you have a user called "backup" wich regularly copies the content of the other users' homes, compresses them and does nothing else, I doubt anything bad could happen.

Joe User uses the virus, loses his data, but has no permissions either to affect the system nor to destroy the backup, owned by "backup". "buckup" doesn't execute any program save from "cp" and "gzip", so it is doubtful his home can be infected...

ummm

[Ty]

This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the Linux user. Instead of just reading an email (... just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable. Even as less sophisticated users begin to migrate to Linux, they may not understand exactly why they can't just execute attachments, but they will still have to go through the steps. As Martha Stewart would say, this is a good thing. Further, due to the strong community around Linux, new users will receive education and encouragement in areas such as email security that are currently lacking in the Windows world, which should help to alleviate any concerns on the part of newbies.

Yes, until someone decides to add that functionality to a mail program. Things like having a 4 step process to read email attachments is WHY linux is not seeing mainstream growth. The average person cares a heck of a lot more about convenience than security.

Missing the point?

[psydid]

Seems the author misses the very obvious point that many of the weaknesses in Windows are there for user-friendliness. Making it easier for users to open attachments & see HTML mail is practically a requirement for the great mass of users. Yes, they're clueless, and yes, it would be nice if they could get over their fear of slightly more complex interfaces. But it ain't gonna happen.

Yes, if Linux _in its current form_ was as common as Windows, it would be be much more secure. But we might as well wish for green eggs & ham ... Linux in its current form will never be as popular precisely BECAUSE of those same limitations. It's practically a tautology that any popular operating system, in order to become popular, must make compromises that make worms inevitable.

Architecture

[deputydink]

One of the things that makes Linux a poor target for virus writers is an almost bewildering array of platforms, kernels and architectures.
System binaries are often in different places even on the same distribution, depending on whether you are using package management or compiling source and sometimes run as different users.

I've seen about 5 diffenent schemes for laying out apache on the disk and i bet theres tonnes more. and i've seen some old solaris admins that move to linux feel the need to move important binaries into /etc.

there are alot of reasons why linux has less viruses than windows and none of them have to do with marketshare or bad admins. That being said, i wonder if it couldn't hurt to fuck with your filesystems just in case i'm wrong...

The users are a factor

[Jason1729]

Any OS is only as secure as the user. When an OS has as much market dominance as windows, it will have a lot of stupid users who do things like open email attachments and not install security patches.

That's why any dominant OS will be a prime target for virus writers.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Most executables are +w only by root

[bersl2]

You can't infect a normal system executable from a normal user on a normal UNIX-like system which, IIRC, is how most true viruses work on Windows. There are security holes; but then again, there are security holes in all software.

Differences...

[SharpFang]

Windows "out of the box" is as wide open as the goatse.cx guy. Linux by default usually has some tiny backdoors (say, unpassworded LILO) and is generally hard to break into. Now assume, breaking into the system using self-sustaining program (like virus - you deploy and it proceeds on its own, without "external help") is quite a bit harder than breaking in "manually" (i.e. trying diferent exploits, snooping, spoofing etc). If Linux is so much harder to break in manually, it's just as much harder to spread viruses.
Plus the "flavour" factor. If there were as many as different "windows distributions" and windows was as customizable as Linux, the viruses would have much harder time to find "exploitable system".
Now, when we are past the political differences, we may consider how "technically" harder is it to write Linux viruses.

disappointing article

[mOoZik]

While poor programming may lead to holes, it is only widespread use (and frequency of use) that brings these holes to the surface. There are all sorts of holes found in Linux, BSD's, many open source software, etc, and considering their user base is much smaller, one could venture and say the products put out by microsoft are actually *safer* than open source. Think about it!

Unixcorn

[unixcorn]

It is clear the author of this twaddle has never worked with the masses supporting any type of computer system. If he had, he would know that explaining the steps to open an email attachment and giving it executable permissions to 80% of end users would be like teaching a dog to drive. I get the same blank stares from my "charges" every day while explaining the most rudementary computer related tasks. If I hear "I am not a compter person" one more fricking time, I am going to go on a 5 state killing spree!!
I welcome the ease of use of Windows and I am happy to pay for the virus protection and fix an occaisional fuck-up. At least it keeps those blank stares from cluttering up my dreams at night.....

It's not that simple, is it?

[Raptor CK]

What about wrapping a virus around a rootkit?

Once anything has root access, it's tough to stop it from making a great many changes to a system, and worming into other systems with the same vulnerability.

This isn't very different at all from the Windows viruses, where almost everything runs with admin access.

I'd say that Linux is a VERY tempting target on the server front, it's just that those systems aren't only under a more watchful eye than the common workstation, they're also usually locked down more tightly out of paranoia.

Now that Win2000/XP has a "Run As" feature built in, home users really shouldn't have default admin access anyway, so it's more of an issue of defaults than anything else.

This is, of course, coming as long-time Linux admin/Windows PC owner/current Mac OS X user. I've seen all three platforms, and Windows isn't really that bad if you just a) set it up properly, and b) train the users. Perhaps if Microsoft actually made a point of enabling privilege separation out of the box, it wouldn't have all these problems. Of course, this is exactly what's wrong with Lindows, ironically enough. It's engineered just fine, it's just not set up right.

Symantec Makes It Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Symantec's new 2004 package with required product activation is highly entertaining, as it now suggests that I buy four! copies for my personal PCs alone.

Give them a call and tell how you feel.

1-408-253-9600. Hit 3, and then ask to speak to a senior supervisor.

Good conclusion, bad logic

[proberts]

The number of viruses doesn't map directly to "OS is safer." There are lots of factors, like motivation to create malware, and ease of injection that come into play, and ease of injection is an application issue more than it is an OS issue. Small modifications to the most popular mail application on each platform would have more effect (discounting worms) than anything else outside of motivation of malware authors.

Secondly, the author obviously lacks clue- modern Windows OS' do *not* execute files based on file type, its a combination of reading the first N bytes of the file, and file type. Rename any .exe to anything else and click on it on a Windows host.

If you have to go back 4 years to get security bulletin examples, it's because you don't have sufficient information- there are ~30 unpatched IE vulnerabilites that affect IE and Outlook that are public, and another ~20 that aren't. You don't have to go back to 1999 to find examples of why the platform is seriously hosed.

It's also too bad the author doesn't address rootkits, because it's important to give some overall malware pictures to show that everything isn't rosy on either side of the fence.

*nix is definitely in a better default state, but it's not the OS that makes that possible (heck, NTFS has filesystem attributes that could likely help.) It's too bad someone with a better understanding of the issues didn't write this article, there are too many holes for serious *doze admins to poke in this one to make it worth passing around.

[Addressing exec-shield and worms would have given a really good argument for Linux, for instance.]

Paul

Re:whatever

[edwdig]

it isn't the OS's fault, it is outlook and if linux blows up, then "outlook for linux" would be just as vunerable

Outlook Express isn't removable from Win2k onwards. MS considers it part of the OS. So it is the OS's fault.

If Linux came with unremovable email clients, then your argument would be valid.

Rebuttal linked from newsforge

[Eberlin]

For those interested, there's a rebuttal linked from Newsforge which pretty much summarizes a lot of the points made here.

Direct link to the article here.

I do wish I could get a good, clear, Linux-favoring argument on the security level (or any other level for that matter). I really am concerned about personal zealotry and the less I come off as a Penguinoid, the more believable/convincing I would be.

Re:YES and NO...

[Sylver Dragon]

One of the things the author touches on, but fails to grasp fully, is that, part of the reason Linux is not now, and won't be for some time, adopted by Joe Sixpack, is that it is a complex PITA to install and run stuff on. Average people like simple. They want to get an email from George down the hall, with an attachment, click on it and have it run. If this means that they have to login as root all the time, and just give everything execute permissions, they will. The author recognizes that most of the problems exist between the chair and the keyboard, but then gives some nebulous, hand wavy, excuse that, if the world ran Linux, people would be better educated. Bullshit. People are going to be just as lazy, and just as ignorant about computers as they are now, they are going to do those dumb things that get them in trouble now, no matter which OS they are running. Even the added complexity will give way eventually. Someone will realize that they can make money selling a version of Linux that is "easy to use". And people will buy it, because they don't want to deal with the hassle. While I realize this is anethma to the /. crowd, most people don't care about the ability to modify the kernel if they want to (they don't!). They just want that 'puter thingy to show them the screen saver their friend sent them, and if they have to choose between a really secure OS, and one that just does it, they will pick the one that just does it. They will install programs that allow them to just run executables in an email, hell most of them will probably install a mail client that automatically launches executables if they think it will make things even eaiser on them. Face it, most people are scared of computers, and if they have to do anything more complex than launch OE and solitare, they are lost, and the author expects them to change, why? Because the Linux advocates will teach them better, he says this while ignoring the fact that many of us who deal with Windows on a daily basis have been trying rather hard to get people to lock up their Windows boxes a little better, without any success. Heck, my own girlfriend bitches about Mozilla on my machine, because it actually does things like block cookies, pop-ups, and java-script, unless you tell it otherwise. And she's probably a bit better about computers than the average person. Sure, the viruses will be different if/when Linux takes over the desktop (and establishes its own monoculture, probably be either RH or Lindows), but there will always be a security hole in the chair/keyboard interface.

Mod parent up!

[ProtoCat]

Most of the arguments presented by the article can be dismissed once the lowest common denominator is taken into account. Your average *CONSUMER* does not like having computers being more complicated than they 'really need to be'.

If and when the so-called great Linux revolution occurs, distros will have to keep the needs of the average consumer in mind. Y'know, the people who outnumber your average slashdot reader in droves? Most of these people have no desire or need to really learn anything beyond what it takes to turn on the machine, open a browser and check their email, maybe running an IM client and the occassional game. Having any expectations of them learning commandline tools such as chmod is pushing it. Microsoft's design choices weren't always out of their own stupidity so much as knowing the majority of potential customers -- the customers with the biggest numbers, thus ones you'd need to be a dominant OS -- aren't informed and *don't wish to be*.

Feel free to wring your hands over it.

This seems very naive

[DrPascal]

The premises of his entire argument are not very sound. He talks about how Linux is safer because it is difficult to run an attachment without knowing how to save it / set execute permissions, and how you can 'only screw up your /home directory' since you don't run as root.

_Really_ think about this one. In order for Linux to become as popular and intuitive [shiver] as Windows, things like "setting execute permissions" need to be automatic. Installing apps should be relatively simple as well. Look at Lindows! You run as root. Tie that in with a couple of "intuitive" features in a mail client, and you have a handful of rootkit'ed machines.

Plus, what if everyone magically rolled to Redhat 7.3 when it came out, ditching Windows all together? Since then, we've had two SSH vulnerabilities. Sure, those using Linux applied the necessary patches / updates and we're all safe again... probably within minutes.

But "Regular User Guy" won't apply that patch. Multiply that by a million users. Now you have millions of machines out there running a rootable linux box.

OSes will have vulnerabilities. They need to be patched. It ALWAYS comes down to the user. Will Linux be 'safer' than Windows (i.e. less vulnerabilities / worms)? Possibly. But it certainly has nothing to do with its difficulty to become root or inconveniences of a mail application.

Re:This seems very naive

[d0n quix0te]

Your argument falls apart easily. One just has to look at Mac OS X. Here's a UNIX variant (BSD nevertheless...) that is easier to use than Windows.

Ease of use is important but then so is intelligent design. Windows arguably has the former , Linux the latter, but OS X seems to get it right on both counts.

Windows problems are not limited to poor kernel design (extraneous graphics routines and such are included in the kernel, bad bad bad...) but also extend to the usability front. Cryptic error messages and bad interfaces compound this problem. The users have been desensitized to reading dialog boxes since they often do not help. Admittedly, many of the viruses use social engineering to spread.. and the reason this is successful is that users are used to seeing tons of very cryptic messages written by engineers-- virus writers take advantage of the ability of the Windows user to blindly click the OK button without reading the dialog box.

Apple dialog warnings on the other hand seem to have been written by humanities majors who seem to speak well to the user. Even GNOME has done an amazing job in making the error warning easy to understand...

Re:This seems very naive

[Admiral Burrito]

In order for Linux to become as popular and intuitive [shiver] as Windows, things like "setting execute permissions" need to be automatic. Installing apps should be relatively simple as well.

An email client is not a program installer. That is what apt/up2date/whatever, and their various GUI front-ends, are for. Those do set execute permissions, among other important functionality (like handling dependencies) that does not belong in an email client.

OSes will have vulnerabilities. They need to be patched. It ALWAYS comes down to the user.

Internet Explorer has 31 unpatched vulnerabilities. How does it "come down to the user" to fix those holes when there are no patches available?

What about OS X?

[tb3]

I don't like the way he keeps mentioning OS X in the same breath as Linux, but neglects to point out the differences.

OS X was designed from the beginning as a desktop OS, and the designers have taken these issues into account. For one thing, the root account is disabled. It is not trivial to enable the root account, and it isn't even necessary.

Secondly, even though OS X ships with a standard mail client it's a good mail client. It can't run applications or scripts with a single click, HTML email is limited to display, no JavaScript can run, and plug-ins don't work.

I wonder if Apple should thank Microsoft for setting such a bad example!

Some early viruses ran only on UNIX!

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

The part I find ironic about this article (most of which I agree with) is that some of the world first viruses were written for, and designed to run on, UNIX.

At least the early work by Dr. Fred Cohen was certainly done on a variety of boxes, and UNIX figured prominently.

The shell viruses were particularly interesting to me.

His book A Short Course in Computer Viruses, ASP Press (1991) is a fantastic read, even for it's age.

Re:whatever

[enkidu]

Did you read the article. (I know you didn't, just wanted to ask in a nice way).

unix based systems run many more daemons that are inherently more vunerable than microsoft products.

Proof? Most daemons nowadays are running as non-priviledged users or are explicitly chroot to prevent standard abuse. The only easy exploits are buffer overflow and those will only work on similar architectures and kernel versions. I'm not sure it's even technically feasible to write a virus that even comes close to spreading as quickly as SoBig. Oh, and do you have any idea how many daemons are running on a standard XP install?

it isn't the OS's fault, it is outlook...

Well, the OS (Windows) and the client (Outlook) are essentially running the same code. Whose fault is that?

if linux blows up, then "outlook for linux" would be just as vunerable ON TOP OF all the other client server bugs

Uhmm, again wrong, only a complete moron would run an mail readers as root, which is essentially what you are doing with Win+Outlook.

I just realized, damn it, I've been trolled again.

Re:Unix-based ...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

As a Linux user, I am proud that Linux is a UNIX derived (at least in spirit) system. It has a base of history, knowledge and experience from which to build. Would starting purely from scratch be better? I hardly think so.

Now if you could remit to SCO $699.00 we would appreciate it.... Darl McBride

MacOS

[Gurudev Das]

MacOS Classic used to have many of the same programs as Windows such as Outlook and stuff and the os has only one user with full access (aka root access). Still, there were not as many virus problems as Windows has, then and today. May be there is something the article missed.

Re:MacOS

[Chris Johnson]

MacOS Classic didn't have so much in the way of automated scripting tapping deeply into system tasks. Hell, even Applescript pretty much needed applications to be written especially to handle scripting events.

MacOS Classic didn't have so much in the way of auto-execute, auto-run etc. stuff- compare that to Windows. MacOS did copy one feature from Windows: auto-running programs on insertion of a CD, for ease of use. MacOS got a well-known worm, one of the 40 or so that have been recorded in Mac history, called the Autostart worm. There was also a way to stop it: turn off auto-start in the Quicktime control panel. And MacOS didn't go around turning it back on for you, either.

Most Mac-capable viruses are exclusively Microsoft software viruses for the simple reason that most are Office macro viruses.

The article author has a point. Leave the OS sitting there like a lump rather than scampering about trying to convince you that it's intelligent and friendly, and you don't get the viruses. Viruses REQUIRE a degree of autonomy from the OS. Even the example of how you could edit login .rc files on Linux take advantage of a degree of autonomy present in the OS, that auto-runs common programs to save you the trouble. If you logged in and manually typed everything in initrc every time, not even a user-space virus could auto-run, even if you'd run it yourself and infected your linux box. It requires the autonomy of an OS that's doing trusted stuff.

Old MacOS has very little of that, and as a result can be incredibly reliable IF you have it in a condition that's not bugladen: too many extensions and microsoft programs that run OS-level support code at all times, and you're hosed.

Even then, the coding culture of old MacOS was to let the user totally run the show. Not so many labor saving devices- not so many vectors for hostile code to work. It's that simple.

Re:Good and bad points

[Todd Knarr]

Hard to run executable attachments being a lack-of-feature: no, it IS a feature. 99% of the Windows malware going around depends on users unwittingly running executable attachments. Making it easy for Linux users to suffer the same fate is NOT a feature, and in particular not a desirable one.

Application vs. OS: MS itself is the one that integrated the HTML component into the core OS. And they can't fix it, because things like Windows Help also use that component. If you fix the behavior for e-mail, you break Windows Help. If you leave the behavior available for Windows Help, it's also available in e-mail. This is the price you pay for integration, and it's a high one.

linux less of a monocolture?

[iceco2]

Lately I see this argument coming up a whole lot, saying one common application+os makes a weak enviorment.

This has been known for a while, is definetly a valid point. But is linux really so much less monocolture than windows? and will it be able to keep the diversity it has when the public smartens up and makes the switch?

What percentage of the linux systems in the world run an openssh server, and were volnerable lately? and what would have happened to a worm written to exploite this.

Most systems in linux you have several good alternatives commonly used, but not all. And when creating a system for the masses one of the most important things is to be standard.
You can't expect everybody to learn how to do everything twice!
If linux will ever reach the masses it will have to be a version very similar in behaviou and UI for practicly everyone.

This leads to the dreaded monocolture enviorment.

Me.

A couple of things

[Trailer Trash]

While I agree with the gist of his article, there are a couple of obvious problems:

Further, due to the strong community around Linux, new users will receive education and encouragement in areas such as email security that are currently lacking in the Windows world

That's unlikely. As Linux takes over corporate desktops, the users are not going to be joining LUG's or mailing lists. This has been mostly true up to this point, but mass acceptance will change the demographic of the user community to be more like that of Windows.

Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that's about it.

It's mind-boggling that this stupid line of reasoning is still used. First, my home directory is the part of the system that I'm most concerned about protecting. Holy shit! That's where my files are. The rest of the OS can be downloaded off the internet or from any CD that I have. But what about the files that I have created? A program destroying my home directory is a far larger problem than a program that mucks up executables or something.

Second, the modern worm/virus on Windows doesn't need any elevated privileges. The whole point is to spread, and there is absolutely nothing about that process that needs or uses any elevated privileges. Being root is not terribly relevant for the modern worm.

With all the lost money and productivity over the last decade caused by countless Microsoft-borne viruses and worms, you'd think the company could have changed its procedures in this area, but no.

And it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference for the most destructive email worms. Is the author from another planet? I have to wonder.

The ONLY reason that Linux has fewer viruses

[dilvish_the_damned]

Is becouse I havent written them yet.
J/K
It is an interesting point that the author inadvertently brings up: As Linux becomes more talerable to the masses, security is likely to suffer. Or, as security suffers, Linux will become more tolerable to the masses.
Most users will point to the new shiny things on their desktop and go 'Looky at what I can do!!'. Security takes a far second even if they are aware of the problem.
Making things hard to do is not the answer. Making things easy to accomplish while maintaining some semblance of security would seem the desirable path. I understand this can be a difficult proposition but trying to leverage the users ignorance to form some sort of security model is just plain counterproductive.
I think this article points out a shortcoming in the Ease Of Use dept. The rest wouldnt appear all that insightfull.

Re:40 Mac Viruses

[90XDoubleSide]

No viruses have been written that work under Mac OS X yet. See: http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1. shtml

Only /home?

[chill]

I'd rather wipe out my system, and not touch /home than the other way around. I can reinstall most of the system in short order, but my /home directory contains all the important stuff.

Remember, it is the *DATA* that is important, not the programs. There are boxes and boxes of the same program on most computer store shelves -- or tons of .tar.gz, .rpm or .iso files for the download.

Re:Only /home?

[FooBarWidget]

That's only true for systems with 1 user. Most home computers are family computers, used by you, your wife, your kids, etc. If a virus wipes out my home directory, at least my parents' homes won't be wiped. In Windows on the other hand, *everything* will be wiped.

"I'd rather wipe out my system, and not touch /home than the other way around"

Not possible. Either your system *and* home directory is wiped, or your home directory only.
What would you prefer:
1. A full system install *and* data restore.
2. Only data restore.

Security vs. Convenience.

[xplenumx]

"Instead of just reading an email (...just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable."

And people wonder why Linux isn't sweeping the market. Simplicity sells, and for good reasons. I'm a technophile and I value security, but even I don't want to go through a dozen and a half steps just to open a file that I 'know' to be safe.

The Windows operating systems certainly have their problems - particularly with how certain defaults are set up. However making life more difficult for the end user definitely won't win any support.

Ummm... Morris Worm?

[throughthewire]

"None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

It's clear that the author includes worms in his definition of "viruses." The first worm I had ever heard of was the Morris Worm, which most certainly did impact UNIX machines, and was very widespread in terms of percentage of infected machines back in 1988.

I agree with the premise to some degree, but I consider a significant amount of the author's "evidence" to be FUD, distorted or simply wrong.

Re:Not all but more

[JoeBuck]

The good folks at Red Hat have come up with a cool way to avoid some of the problems of monoculture in GNU/Linux: position independent executables. Addresses of code segments can be randomized at load time by the dynamic linker. The result is that common techniques for writing buffer overflow exploits no longer work, because every executable on every server is different. You can no longer insert code into a buffer whose length is not checked and then override the return address to point to it, because you don't know what return address to use. Worms can't spread if this technique is used.

While this technique still doesn't stop people from exploiting cross-site scripting bugs, it's progress.

Ease-of-use ~ Ease-of-infection

[jbum]

> the conventional wisdom that if Linux or Mac OS X were as popular as Windows...

The very features which make Linux less vulnerable to virii also insure that it will
never be as popular as Windows.

Try explaining 'chmod' to your mother-in-law.

Re:Ease-of-use ~ Ease-of-infection

[Anime_Fan]

Try explaining 'chmod' to your mother-in-law.

I've actually done this. She wasn't all too pleased with my answers but agreed that beeing able to prevent other users from hampering with your files was a good thing. She was even happier when I told her Nautilus and Konqueror could set the permissions in a GUI that she completely understood.

One does not need to understand chmod in order to use a *nix system. One need only understand the concept behind it.

Interesting rebuttal

[geekee]

Here's an interesting rebuttal. The 1st line is "The single biggest security issue facing Linux users at the moment is the misconception perpetuated by highly vocal advocates that Linux is somehow impenetrable to security-based attacks, and in particular, viruses and other malware."

Difficulty is a factor too

[FreekyGeek]

A very interesting article, but the author leaves out one very important point: the difficulty of writing a virus for Linux is much higher than writing one for Windows, so fewer people will do it. It takes much greater skill and effort to screw up a UNIX-based system than a winodws system because of the much clearer distinction between user files and system files. Today, a large percentage of Windows viruses are just slight modifications of others, and there even exist "virus toolkits" to generate viruses without much technical knowledge at all. In short, the "script kiddie" factor of relatively clueless people whipping up viruses based on a few instructions received in IRC is much less under UNIX.

The author does point out, quite correctly, that even if Linux viruses became more widespread, most of them would probably only affect the user space and not currupt the system itself.

Re:interesing

[mormop]

i wonder what the commercial applications/implications of this are? any takers?

I suspect that the commercial implications are minimal at least for a year or three. For a start, a lot of IT decision makers, i.e. accountants and people who have been promoted from middle management with little technical ability will still swallow MS's bullshit. They will also buy Server 2003, optimistically believing that it will be cure all the problems of Server 2000 in the same way they believed 2000 would cure the problems of NT.

For an example cop this survey. It apparently shows that Europe's IT directors place consistency higher than security and reliability and the human tendency to submit to fear and one's own insecurity rather than to break ranks and try something new will lead a lot of people who have no real faith in their own abilites to stick with what they know, i.e. Windows, regardless of how shit it may be, how many viruses it catches, how many customer's credit card numbers get stolen etc.. They crave stability even if what they have is flawed, at least they know where the buttons are.

In all honesty, I don't see single OS networks as being a good idea regardless of what your using. There are millions of lines of code in a modern OS and it only takes one cock-up to open a crack through which it can be broken. A lesson in genetics suggests that diversity gives you the best hope of survival when under attack or it can at least slow the attacker as they, or their virus, try to find vulnerabilties in each system.The only way that will be achieved is by opening file formats so that all platforms can exchange data with 100% transparency. This will also create a truly free market causing companies to develop software based on quality, performance, security and reliabilty rather than how pretty the GUI is and how clever this years bunch of graduate marketing twats are. The obvious side effect is the breaking of MS's monopoly and the burgeoning of a new software market that will develop ports and alternatives to existing "industry standard" stuff like AutoCad. Proprietry software companies fear this the most as they will then have to wrestle with real competition.

I still think that Linux, BSD and Mac are inherently more secure and better coded than Windows though. I also suspect the rot is so deeply set into MS stuff (with a 20 year legacy of putty eye candy before security) that they will never sort it out without a ground up rewrite, somthing they will not do unless forced to.

Linux developers on the other hand have given a security a starring role since day one and even though there are bound to be flaws they're fixed in short time by developers who don't spend the first week denying a problem exists. It's free, it does what I need and it's users give a shit. What more can I ask for.

If you can't tell the difference, you'll be owned.

[Population]

They are very different beasties and they are handled in very different ways.

A worm is handled by keeping your patches up to date and by NOT RUNNING ANYTHING YOU DON'T NEED.

A virus is handled by NOT RUNNING AS ROOT.

A trojan is handled by EDUCATION.

Microsoft has made the spread of trojans and viruses very easy by automatically running code. Sometimes without the user even knowing that the code has been executed.

A rootkit usually uses an exploit in a running process to install itself. In this fashion, it is similar to a worm. But it does not automatically spread itself to other machines.

Or it could be a hacked version of ls that is executed because someone was dumb enough to have . in their path. In which case it is similar to a trojan.

Different terms to reflect different attacks that are defeated in different ways.

All the patching in the world will not stop a trojan.

The best security on your email program will not matter if you're running a vulnerable version of sendmail.

Only run what you need to run.
Run with the minimum rights necessary.
Don't run unknown code.
Keep your patches current.
Run tripwire or something similar.
Review your logs.

OS X Administrator != root

[MacDork]

The reason it asks for a password is that an OS X 'administrator' is not root. It's staff. There is no root account by default. You have to enable that purposely. The point is that if you double click something that looks like a picture file and it asks you for your admin password, you KNOW something is up. On Windows, double click and you're dead. If it doesn't ask and you're running as an Admin, it might wipe out /Applications and ~/, but it can't touch /System or any other user's files. If you run as a regular user, then only ~/ can be hosed.

debunking "Linux Vs. Windows VIruses"

[md_seymour]

Much of this article represents widely held ideas about modern Unix-like OSes that are either false now, will change in the near future, or are based on 20 year-old ideas about Unix. These seem to stem from the idea that the *nix OS will be installed on a large, multi-user server running many small limited-function tools such as text-based e-mail clients. This is changing. Many of these operating systems are installed on single-user desktops running large, graphical applications such as Evolution and KMail which attempt to be very user friendly.

Here are the arguments from the article:

"a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable."

The default behavior of *nix mail clients is to save files if instructed, and not executable. However, There isn't anything inherent to *nix which dictates this. A mail client that claims to be more user friendly can also save a file and run it automatically as well. There just hasn't been a popular one in use yet.

"Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that's about it."

The configuration that Linux has been trying to increase its numbers with, and OS X's main configuration is the single user desktop machine with no automatic backups. To the home user, blowing away /home/foo is the single most disastrous thing that can happen.

"Windows XP, supposed Microsoft's most secure desktop operating system, automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the power to do anything he wants to the computer. ... On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself."

Ok, I agree with these points. However, as Linux penetrates the home user market, the limited capabilities of the regular user will be increased. Remember Lindows? I believe (all) user(s) run as root. The author address Lindows near the end of the article, but he dismisses it as an exception rather than the rule. Ask yourself *why* the developers chose this route. It's because they want more home user/desktop penetration. Expect more of these types of decisions to be made in the future.

"Even worse, the collection of files on a Windows system - the operating system, the applications, and the user data - can't be kept apart from each other. Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted out in any sensibly secure fashion."

Ever look at /usr/lib lately? Over 1500 files in mine at last count, including very few subdirectories and lots of symbolic links. The same for /usr/bin. Or is it /lib? Or /usr/local/lib? Or is it /usr/local/bin? Besides for some accepted practices, most applications dump their libraries in /usr/lib and executables in /usr/bin, but without any organization.

"Linux runs on many architectures, not just Intel, and there are many versions of Linux, many packaging systems, and many shells. But most obvious to the end user, Linux mail clients and address books are far from standardized."

Again, as Linux becomes more popular with home users, one or two mail clients (depending on if one or two desktop environments will survive in 5 years) could possibly dominate the market, on possibly one type of architecture, the x86. As well, Linux prides itself on supporting standards, across different applications.

"Microsoft continually links together its software, often not for technical reasons, but instead for marketing or business development reasons"

Here I will agree with the author,

Re:interesing

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Either that or many of the things that make for a good OS run by tens of millions would lead too a hundred thousand tech support calls for a day were Linux or Unix scaled up.

Each little stumbling block that is beneath the notice of a Linux user translates to thousands of tech calls out in the real world.

People hate to have to learn to jiggle the door handle to get the key to work. They hate to have to hit the TV on the top left side, just and so.

In spite of popular opinion, these OS's have [b]not[/b] been put thru the wringer...

Slight flaw in your logic

[freeweed]

Plus, what if everyone magically rolled to Redhat 7.3 when it came out, ditching Windows all together? Since then, we've had two SSH vulnerabilities. Sure, those using Linux applied the necessary patches / updates and we're all safe again... probably within minutes. But "Regular User Guy" won't apply that patch.

Every install of RedHat I've ever done sure as hell doesn't install and run an SSH daemon by default. And if you turn it on, you can turn it off.

Hundreds of posts, and not one Slashdotter has pointed this out: the most recent RPC vulnerabilities are all the proof you need to show why Windows, in its current incarnations, is far less secure than any Linux distro I've ever seen. An unpatched Windows system on the internet can be compromised within minutes, and it's not because there are "oh so many Windows viruses". It's because the RPC service is enabled by default, "run as root" insofar as Windows does that, and YOU CAN'T TURN THE DAMN THING OFF. So even if I'm clueful, don't open email attachments, only use plain text email, never run foreign binaries, I can still get "rooted" trivially.

Show me a Linux distro that does that. Hell, RedHat goes one further and runs IPtables by default for you these days. I'd love to see you try to root my box without being able to connect to it first. With a Windows machine, you as user leave a half-dozen almost unclosable ports open by default.

(Note: I realize that Apache, OpenSSH, and every other server daemon under the sun has known vulnerabilities. But I'm comparing apples to apples here, and Joe Sixpack doesn't often run a webserver off his WindowsXP box).

Enabling root?

[ProfessionalCookie]

Enabling root is totally non-trivial.

Applications/Utilities/Net Info Manager:
Security >> Enable Root User

Didn't even have to touch the command line or restart or anything. But for the most part you're right about it not being necessary.

In addition...I like the idea of having a pure System directory. For those of you who don't know, as a programmer you never have to touch the System directory in OS X save kernel extensions.

BeOS

[Anonymous Coward]

HA HA HA, BeOS has no viruses written for it. But on the other hand it has no other applications written for it either.

Re:I hate this argument.

[tconnors]

You missed the point. While wiping /home would be 'unfortunate' for you, it reduces the virus' spread.

Since this article is about the spread of virii on popular systems, let's concider for the moment how most people use computers. Most people have one computer to themselves. They will set up an account for themselves, and probably their entire family uses that one account. They store a year's worth of data on it, and then a virus comes along. Now, you are saying, well, it's only limited to the one account. For most people, this is everything. The OS can be reinstalled. Everything is reproducable, *except* for the data in the user's home directory. And this is precisely the stuff the virii will delete.

Now, concider the action of spreading. What about being an unpriveleged user stops the spreading of the virii? Blocking of ports below 1024? Doesn't affect sending an email to everyone on the address book.

The guy also talks about how the lack of a dominant monoculture means virii will never spread under linux (despite the argument being that when Linux is dominant, virii still won't spread). Intel vs AMD vs alpha vs MIPS, whether the user uses mozilla or kmail. Well, condider that when Linux is popular, most people will settle on the program that gets set up by default on the default desktop, using the most popular distribution. We don't see a monoculture *today*, because most Linux users use what they prefer, not what comes by default. Oh, and of course, on an Intel box.

basic math

[Uberbah]

10 * 0 = 0

Yes, *but*

[stewby18]

For one thing, the root account is disabled. It is not trivial to enable the root account, and it isn't even necessary.

On the other hand, he doesn't mention that all you have to do is convince someone to enter their Administrator password, and all hell can break loose. I would say you are far more likely to sucessfully socially engineer someone to do that (Check out this wicked screen-saver; you just need to enter your administrator password to install it (a common install procedure)) than to get a *NIX user to run something as root.

Re:Unix-based ...

[maraist]

Actually linus implemented clone() instead. Please learn.

POSIX is an API. When we say "UNIX" we generally refer to the POSIX API. An API's whole point is to abstract the particulars of an implementation. For example, Perl actually implements fork on windows through the use of independent interpreters runing in a threaded environment. Java, also is an API which facilitates things like graphics and asynchronous file access (strangely similar to UNIX IO selection btw).

To say that GNU's Not Unix with a straight face is to miss the point.

Likewise is to differentiate the implementation details of clone v.s. the front-end API "fork". "clone" is only significant because it allows the kernel to have a single entry point to handle process creation; both threading and forking, differentiated only by a memory mapping flag. Is it any less significant that some primitive implementations of POSIX concepts delegate inter-process pipes as physical temporary files?

Granted lack of full POSIX compliance exists in things such as signal delivery to threads. But it's rare to find a fully POSIX complaint OS.

Re:Missing the point entirely

[Trepalium]

How is this the fault of Windows? Every single application that Microsoft releases works with restricted logins, and that is not by accident.

Actually, that's not true. Just about every office application MS releases works as a limited user, but Microsoft has a long list of games that do not work, and several Microsoft published games are listed. Age of Mythology, Asheron's Call, and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 to name just a few are part of this list. There's even some non-game software in there that Microsoft creates, such as Microsoft Money 2003 and Works Suite 2001/Picture It Publishing 2001.

In my opinion, it should force you to add a restricted user account during installation. (But note that most linux distributions do not force you to do this either...)

More Linux distributions are forcing you to create one, or just tell you that you're stupid not to add one. However, in regards to WinXP, I'd go one step further, and say that the user it prompts you to create should be made a limited user by default, and to encourage the use of runas to do system maintainance. Unfortunately, then we run into another problem. People will forget the administrator password.

Re:interesing

[Biscit]

We run both Windows 2000 and Linux here, but Linux is restricted to development of linux based embedded systems. The view of one IT porffessional I have spoken to is that linux is a vast security hole, his main reasoning being that as the source code of Windows is not publically available, and all the source for linux is easily found, Windows must be intrinsically secure!

Re:interesing

[mormop]

It's undeniable that people that don't like having to learn new things and certainly don't like to have to enter root passwords and get their hands dirty. I mean hell, the joke about getting your 7 year old kids to teach adults how to program the VCR is funny purely because so many people can relate to it.

While the workings of consumer electronics can be made transparent to end users, computers are a different entity all together.

My original point is based on the problem that a lot of IT decisions are made by non-technically minded management based on the effect it will have on the company accounts in the current financial year. How many IT people have put educated, well developed ideas forward and had them shot down not for technical reasons but because there's no money. At the same time, the CEO's getting a $/3 million bonus and a new Mercedes. How do you accurately calculate TCO? How much to include for the cost of having to pull in IT staff, on overtime, over the weekend in order to carry out disaster recovery when the latest virus wreaks havoc. What if a virus as prolific as SoBig.F started overwriting hard disk sectors that store drive geometry info forcing whole corporations to fix or replace every HDD in the company. Imagine the chaos. Is it luck that this hasn't happened? Is it on the cards? Who knows, but if it does happen I know the shit will really hit the fan.

All I'm saying is that if you can integrate other OS's into a business it would be a good insurance policy to do so. OK if you use AutoCAD you're more or less stuck with Windows on the desktop because as good as LinuxCAD or others may be there's too much built around AutoCAD for many people to use it as a drop in replacemnt.
On the other hand if your servers are sharing files and printers, delivering e-mail and not a lot else, why the hell are you running Windows. Now that Opengroupware is out even Exchange (the holy grail) may be replaceable and there are Linux server solutions that will fulfill all the requirements of an awful lot of offices. In exchange you get a mail server that is immune to Windows viruses, loads of extra odds and sods that'd cost a fortune on Windows and an extra degree of seperation in the event of an attack.

Support will develop as Linux usage expands. Or why not use a MAC? Known company, good reputation and it ain't Windows giving you many of the benefits of Linux with Apple paid support. BSD, whatever, it's not the OS you use that makes the difference it's removing the uniformity of weaknesses that a network of 100% identical machines on a network gives you.

There really is enough room for more than one OS in the world and at the end of the day, how many SoBIG.F's will it take to cost business the price of supporting it.

Re:Unix-based ...

[Dashing Leech]

True, but then Linux is not even an operating system, it's the kernel. The entire operating system is really GNU/Linux (or maybe not). Clear as mud?

Does anyone think the author had any valid points?

[journeyman101]

As I trudged through this article on the Register, I am thinking to myself, does this guy even have any valid points here? After reading the article, I dont see how he refutes the idea that if Linux was on as many desktops as Windows, that it wouldnt have the same problems.

I personally dont use OE and prefer Linux over Windows, but the points he made in this article are well.....pointless.