Linux vs Windows a real life comparison

[toadlife]

I imagine that if GNU/Linux had 50% market share, at least a few more crackers would start targetting it. However, I don't think, and I don't see any reason to think, that the situation would ever (100% market share, anyone?) be as bad as Windows has ever been (wanna gimme one, toadlife?).

lol. You just said it...100% market share. But, yes Windows in it's current incarnation will allways more dangerous by default than other OSs due to admin accounts being created by default. But as I said, the only benefit malware makers have with root access is the ability to install rootkits. This ability is nice, but hardly neccessary. Microsoft could write the most secure, flaw free, locked down OS on the planet, and it won't make a huge difference because of the sheer amount of dummies who use their products. I'm sure Vista will be much improved, as far as defaults, and will probbaly contain less flaws, but I'm also equally sure the Windows malware train will continue to roll right through it.

Windows doesn't handle security all that well be default, big problem for it's mostly-retarded userbase, as well as it's small intelligent userbase who will be targetted by more crackers through more cracked Windows computers.

I agree, but as I said, I don't think more secure defaults will keep the dummies from screwing things up.  WHat's the saying, "Never underestmate the power of stupid people in large groups."

It seems to me as though all hints are pointing to "GNU/Linux will be much safer than Windows in a 50/50 market"

Replace "much" with "slightly" and I might agree with you.

[cymon]

how can you install programs using a restricted user account ? You can't ... at least not most programs

You can do that in OSX. Those bundles don't have to be in Applications, they can go wherever.

[piratePenguin]

I agree, but as I said, I don't think more secure defaults will keep the dummies from screwing things up.  WHat's the saying, "Never underestmate the power of stupid people in large groups."

Still, you have to think about the not-completely-dummy people and the kinda-dummy people and everyone else. Some people will be stupid enough to plaster their root password at everything that asks for it, and some will be slightly more cautious.

Replace "much" with "slightly" and I might agree with you.

KO, "GNU/Linux would be safer than Windows in a 50/50 market".

[toadlife]

KO, "GNU/Linux would be safer than Windows in a 50/50 market".

I never said it wouldn't - just that linux would have more than enough problems of it's own. This theortical 50/50 market, would require the installation of programs and drivers to be much more ubiquitous in linux than it is now. This would make it even easier for n00bs to screw things up. Also, what's to say future versions of Windows won't solve the major default config problems it faces today, this putting it on equal ground with other OS's?

[piratePenguin]

I never said it wouldn't - just that linux would have more than enough problems of it's own.

It might have more problems than it does now, but they certainly aren't security related.

Also, what's to say future versions of Windows won't solve the major default config problems it faces today, this putting it on equal ground with other OS's?

Good for Windows if/when it happens, but right now it doesn't matter. Right now is what we're interested in.

Anyone who claims that GNU/Linux would be as bad with malware as Windows is if it had Windows' share of the market (which is mostly made up of super-Windows-users browsing around the internet) takes defaults with retards too lightly.

[toadlife]

Anyone who claims that GNU/Linux would be as bad with malware as Windows is if it had Windows' share of the market (which is mostly made up of super-Windows-users browsing around the internet) takes defaults with retards too lightly.

And anyone who claims that Gnu/Linux is a feasable desktop solution for the masses in it's current state takes Gnu/Linux too seriously.

[piratePenguin]

And anyone who claims that Gnu/Linux is a feasable desktop solution for the masses in it's current state takes Gnu/Linux too seriously.

Possibly.

[worker201]

Should the masses even be using computers at all?  It was marketing and sales tactics that put computers in every home.  Now we are beginning to see why this might not have been a great idea.  I certainly don't remember any LOGO viruses!

Perhaps the reason that the masses aren't ready for Linux on the desktop is that they probably shouldn't have a computer in the first place.

[Aloone_Jonez]

You can do that in OSX. Those bundles don't have to be in Applications, they can go wherever.

Then the normal user should only  be able to execute binarys from two directories one that contains the OS system files and the other containing user programs. However while this might be the most secure OS model it isn't practical at the moment as it'd break compatability with nearly all the old software.

[piratePenguin]

Should the masses even be using computers at all? It was marketing and sales tactics that put computers in every home. Now we are beginning to see why this might not have been a great idea. I certainly don't remember any LOGO viruses!

Perhaps the reason that the masses aren't ready for Linux on the desktop is that they probably shouldn't have a computer in the first place.

You must really hate Apple. Do you think the masses would be ready for OS X on the desktop?

I think computers should be made accessible for everyone. They've all sorts of uses and make life easier. Plus, digital things can be reproduced basically for nothing, which opens some interesting possibilities for society. Of course, it's mostly not been going so well, but that's just an artifact of the fucked up world we're living in right now.

[cymon]

Then the normal user should only  be able to execute binarys from two directories one that contains the OS system files and the other containing user programs. However while this might be the most secure OS model it isn't practical at the moment as it'd break compatability with nearly all the old software.

Why? What would be the big deal with running from another directory? As long as the user has to specifically invoke the executable, who cares where it resides?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Only allowing binary execution from two designated system directories which the user doesn't have permission to write to would stop the them from running an executable they've downloaded, received in an email or got from a CD or floppy disk, this would make it impossible for a them to infect the system with a virus.

[cymon]

It would also make it physically impossible to install software. If you're going to do this, you have to have something like sudo. Also, Safari will check any files for executables, whether it's an archive, disk image, etc. It even detects .exe apps. I'm sure something like this could be implemented for mail.

[Orethrius]

It would also make it physically impossible to install software.

Agreed.  I happen to think application installs should *always* be confined to userspace, or better yet, an isolated subset thereof with zero write permissions to external directories.  All temp files would be contained in the same directory, not particularly hard to pull off.  That way, the worst any one program can do is wipe itself out.

If you're going to do this, you have to have something like sudo.

Unfortunately, as toadlife pointed out, sudo has its own set of problems.  It's fine, however, if you can insure that you will be the only person EVER using your login (that means no installs of unchecked code in your userspace, or worse, /usr/bin).

Also, Safari will check any files for executables, whether it's an archive, disk image, etc.

I think we can all agree that this is "a good thing."  However, if the end-user is uneducated regarding the proper action for unknown executables, they will just run them anyway.  I have a buddy who's constantly cleaning out his PC because his idiot brother keeps clicking "Yes" to every download/install dialog he sees.

It even detects .exe apps. I'm sure something like this could be implemented for mail.

This HAS been implemented by numerous ISPs on numerous dates, only to later be repealed because poor Joe Averageguy can't read the .rtf(.vbs) that was sent to him by [email protected].  What ISPs need to start doing is educating customers about the dangers of viruses (being careful not to take the oh-so-infamous alarmist tone that turns Luddites off to new technologies completely), while simultaneously allowing themselves to lose a few customers that expect them to make decisions that endanger the whole of their subscriber base.  There's something to be said about an uncompromisingly secure ISP, and word travels fast to the appropriate people.

[Aloone_Jonez]

It would also make it physically impossible to install software. If you're going to do this, you have to have something like sudo.

That would be the plan, also you'd have to class scripts as executables too.

Another method might be to have a configuration file containing a list of paths and file names and checksums of approved executables that normal unprivilaged users can run but this might slow the system down a bit too much.