Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viruses and Market Dominance - Myth or Fact?

Posted by simoniker on from the wash-your-hands-first dept.

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."

54 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. What about r00tkits? by Leme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about r00tkits? by demaria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What about r00tkits? by SquadBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    3. Re:What about r00tkits? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    4. Re:What about r00tkits? by fupeg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

    5. Re:What about r00tkits? by d3faultus3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    6. Re:What about r00tkits? by CompMD · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:What about r00tkits? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    And they all stink.

  3. yes, but the effect might be different by civilengineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:yes, but the effect might be different by pebs · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      --
      #!/
    2. Re:yes, but the effect might be different by incom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    3. Re:yes, but the effect might be different by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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,

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  4. his worst argument... by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:his worst argument... by Killean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      My new catch phrase is: "I NEED A NEW CATCH PHRASE, BABY!"
    2. Re:his worst argument... by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!"

      --
      52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
    3. Re:his worst argument... by mcdrewski42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      /* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
  5. I see the problem. by Soulfader · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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!"

  6. Operating System bugs vs Application level bugs by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Linux Is Getting There, too! by PRES_00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Linux Is Getting There, too! by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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)

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    2. Re:Linux Is Getting There, too! by abeger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...".

    3. Re:Linux Is Getting There, too! by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Linux Is Getting There, too! by plam · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  8. Its all about the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:Unix-based ... by bladernr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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!

    --
    Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
  10. But... by The+Gline · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
    1. Re:But... by Sevn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  11. Windows viruses and GNU/Linux by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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--

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    1. Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux by realdpk · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Windows viruses and GNU/Linux by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
  12. Forget Windows by mutewinter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. "Normal user" by owlstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:"Normal user" by lhand · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  14. Missing the point? by psydid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Most executables are +w only by root by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. Differences... by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  17. Re:whatever by edwdig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:YES and NO... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  19. Mod parent up! by ProtoCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. This seems very naive by DrPascal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
    1. Re:This seems very naive by Admiral+Burrito · · Score: 3, Informative
      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?

  21. What about OS X? by tb3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  22. A couple of things by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  23. Re:MacOS by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

  24. Only /home? by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Only /home? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  25. Re:Not all but more by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  26. Ease-of-use ~ Ease-of-infection by jbum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.

  27. Interesting rebuttal by geekee · · Score: 3, Informative

    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."

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  28. Difficulty is a factor too by FreekyGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:interesing by mormop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  30. If you can't tell the difference, you'll be owned. by Population · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  31. OS X Administrator != root by MacDork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.