Slashdot Mirror
Windows Viruses up Sharply in 2004
Brad1138 writes "MSNBC has an article regarding the proliferation of Windows Viruses and collaboration among virus writers and spammers. Also mentions the likelihood that viruses for Linux and handhelds will see a sharp rise."
If that headline were "Fords suddenly accelerating into oncoming traffic more in 2004", we'd see a lot more action than just applause at Gates' empty lies about prioritizing security.
--
make install -not war
Is it me, or does slashdot report the news that "Windows viruses on the rise!" or some derivation thereof every single fucking day?
I mean, this is just a mainstream news spacefiller about stuff we know all about.
Forget your it and politics sections. Just make a "ms-flamebait" section, and just repost this "announcement" that there are lots of Windows' malware every 15 minutes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This short article mentions an increase in linux viruses, but fails to mention the obvious fact about a virus that attacks any open source operating system: Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community. The lifetime of a virus attacking and open source OS would be very short, and wouldn't require the use of any third party virus protection software to fix.
From the article:
Spammers, after forking over money to the hackers for access, then flood those hacked computers with unsolicited messages, or spam, that often advertise products or get people to spend money.
That makes it sound like they take over your machine so they can send you spam. No, they take over your machine so that they can USE your machine to send spam to millions of other users.
I thought last year was supposed to be the 'worst ever' according to this article anyway.
Hmmm, let's review:
2003 - worst year ever
2004 - viruses sharply up (from the worst year ever)
So - when does that 'Great Security Initiative' of 2002 start working? Microsoft please - the authenticated code approach doesn't work. Sandboxes do.
Because you know it would happen.
Symantec also said it expects more viruses and worms in the future to be written to attack systems that run on the Linux operating system and hand-held devices as they become more widely used.
Hmmm, Symantec sells virus protection for hand-helds and Linux. I sure hope that they believe there will be more virus/spam attacks against these systems.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
Quoth the article:
Symantec also said it expects more viruses and worms in the future to be written to attack systems that run on the Linux operating system and hand-held devices as they become more widely used.
Hand held devices are already pretty widely used. Also, do they mean Pocket Windows? Palm OS? And have they checked the numbers?
My problem is that there is no great proof that I've seen for or against linux/Mac/Palm OS being more secure or less prone to viruses. A sentence beginning with Symmantec always makes me think this is just FUD to stir up concern on other platforms to purchase products, with no basis in fact.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Hmmm... I seriously doubt that there is going to be a "sharp rise" in Linux viruses for a few reasons:
1. Most people, when it comes to doing work, try to do just enough to get by. If it's easier to infect a machine running Windows than it is to do one running Linux, it'll be the Windows machine getting attacked.
2. In the same vein, most people you use Linux or a different flavor of *nix tend to be more technically savvy than the typical Windows user and secure their systems properly (in my experience). Note, I am talking about users here, not computer professionals.
3. And the numbers of Linux systems available for compromise still isn't as high as the number of new computers that boot into Windows when they come out of the box from Dell (IBM, HP, Compaq, etc).
Will we eventually see more Linux systems being attacked? Sure, as people finally get a clue and either secure their Windows systems properly, install a decent firewall (preferably hardware), change OSes, or get get disgusted with the Internet in general and pull the plug.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
VIRUSES - A big problem on Windows, currently not a big problem on Linux. I view viruses as a failure of the security model of the operating system.
...
... So the "solution" is to block or slow the most common method of such "infections". Which is Microsoft Outlook and its ability to run executable attachments. Just NOT enabling this functionality on Linux email clients would prevent most trojan attacks from "infecting" the computer.
Windows is still VERY open to viruses but for pure infection rates they can't match
TROJANS - particularly the email types. Dumb user clicks on an attachment and gets infected. The trojan then emails itself to everyone in his address book (on the assumption that dumb people have dumb friends). Trojans will be with us as long as we have dumb users.
-and-
WORMS - The spread without any human intervention. But these should have a very short life span. Patch the flaw and they die.
Which shows why Linux has been so resistant to "viruses" so far.
#1. Worms - Not everyone runs the same services, active, with the same flaws, unprotected by a firewall. And there is no reason to believe that this will ever change. Worms are a minor threat on Linux.
#2. Viruses - the security model for Linux is better at preventing infections than Microsoft's model. Unless this changes (again, why would it), viruses will remain a minor threat on Linux.
#3. Rootkits - a problem, but they rely upon flaws the same a worms do.
#4. Trojans - We'll see. Unfortunately, as I stated above, this is also the largest current "virus" threat today. If you can get a dumb user to go through all the steps necessary to install it
So, while Linux is not perfect, it is far more resistant to viruses, worms and even dumb user trojans than Windows is.
There are a lot of reasons why viruses and worms will never be such a huge problem in Linux as they are in Windows now:
Will we see Linux desktop viruses? Almost certainly yes. But they will be pretty rare and not an epidemy like those on Windows today.
did you read any of them?
I just went through and read a dozen (I've read more in the past, just wanted to see if they had changed). All are listed as easy to remove, low danger. All involve someone doing something *really* stupid (like, "once a user runs this program, it writes to all the files in the same directory..." blah).
NONE are a virus. I could just as easily write a shell script that simply had as its only line:
rm -rf / 2>/dev/null &
You wouldn't know anything was wrong until you were screwed. Would it be a virus? No, it would be someone too STUPID to look at what they are running.
Find a single "virus" in that list that is anything different.
In windows, on the other hand, you can get viruses just by looking at a jpeg, or opening an email, or even just visiting a web site. To be "safe," windows users have to have active virus scanners; all linux users have to do is not have a . in their path, and not run things they don't recognize. How did the file get on the system, anyway? We're *starting* with a breach, when it comes to linux "viruses." If someone can put a file in a directory, they can do far more while they're there (like, modify the programs themselves, change configs, set up keystroke loggers, whatever...why just leave malware?).
Get a clue, and realize its not just zealotry speaking when someone says Linux, and UNIX in general, doesn't have to worry about viruses. They also don't have to worry about playing WoW, or using MS Office. They're simply different environments than Windows.