Linux vs Windows viruses

[Refalm]

Great article, points out why Windows is unsaver than Linux, and not because of the lame reason: "Linux has less users".

 

quote:Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus: 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.

 

quote:Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus: Microsoft's email software is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email! Take a look at Microsoft Security Bulletins MS99-032, MS00-043, MS01-015, MS01-020, MS02-068, or MS03-023, for instance.
Though Microsoft's latest versions of Outlook block most executable attachments by default, it's still possible to override those protections.

 

quote:Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus: 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.

 

quote:Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus: Further, the email programs themselves are designed to act in a more secure manner. When an HTML-based email shows up in my Inbox, I see only the HTML code, and a message appears at the top of the email: "This is an HTML message. For security reasons, only the raw HTML code is shown. If you trust the sender of this message then you can activate formatted HTML display for this message by clicking here." But even after I activate the HTML, certain dynamic elements that can be introduced in an HTML-based email - like Java, Javascript, plugins and even the "refresh" META tag - do not display, and cannot even be enabled in KMail.

Read more.

[cahult]

I will say again what I said two months back: He/she who dares make a virus for any kind of Linux will be flogged by the Linux community.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by cahult:
I will say again what I said two months back: He/she who dares make a virus for any kind of Linux will be flogged by the Linux community.

Its not really that, I mean the facts are already there.  Linux IS more secure than windows period!  Your nevr gonna find an M.BlasetW32 worm etc...  Because of the way its built and the windows guys now it and the anti-virous people know it and they both know that because of this no one are gonna need their products any more.


And the artical was awsome!!

[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

[LordWiccara]

the Half Life 2 source code was partially stolen, and they blame it on leaks and security issues with IE and Outlook...no Linux program will do this.

http://planethalflife.com

Another HL2 source leak article can be found at eWeek. Their article mentions how security flaws within Microsoft software may be to blame. Here

[Faust]

quote:the Half Life 2 source code was partially stolen, and they blame it on leaks and security issues with IE and Outlook...no Linux program will do this.

Um there ARE linux security exploits.  But

a: they are limited by various security features (chroot, accounts)

b: they are not endemic and systemic

c: they are patched QUICKLY which means a virus that takes advantage of a flaw will not be able to propagate for long - the flaw will be fixed, so bye bye virus.

d: patching is easier with the newer distros than it is on windows, so patches will be applied more often.  also patches for linux dont break net access etc.

e: with GNU applications there is no defaults.  when you hit a windows box you KNOW there will be outlook to exploit, you KNOW there will be IE to exploit, you KNOW you will have access to the Windows apps that are ALWAYS there.  With a free box there is no one "central" anything, so you cant rely on an exploit for only one program.  And with even that not massive drop in ease for a virus to spread, viruses will die very quickly.  Viruses are like real world viruses - if they cant infect hosts fast enough they die out.