Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
"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!"
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.
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.
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
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.
RMS commented on this issue earlier this year:
There are several reasons why GNU/Linux has few viruses:
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!
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.
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...
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!"
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
... 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."
/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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
.tar.gz, .rpm or .iso files for the download.
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
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.