thelinuxlink.net

Having a discussion with our office IT guy this morning on reasons why Linux has less malware, spyware and viruses than Microsoft.

His answer is popularity (or lack there of). Linux is not as widely used as Microsoft (he obviously doesn't count Linux servers) and, therefore, not worth writing code for.

I didn't get into the whole idea that Linux powers much of the Net already, but I countered with this idea instead:

"Generally" when a person installs Linux, he/she chooses a particular distribution. Each Linux distribution, in more cases than not, have their own repositories of applications and files for their system. Usually, a person will use these repositories to get new software for their system.

To be considered a reputable Linux distribution, these repositories must be well maintained and free of malware, spyware, and such. If not, it wouldn't take long for the Linux community to learn about these shameful practices and stop using the distro. all together. Because there are so many Linux distributions to choose from, an offending distro. would be shut down (due to lack of interest) in no time.

In my opinion, this reason - above others (although still legitimate reasons) - is why we have such a "safe" operating environment when compared to other OSs.

Your thoughts?

I agree with your IT guy, honestly. Not about malware specifically, but linux as an attractive attack vector, or system to attack. It's simply less attractive, in part because of it's relative lack of use. There are a large amount of exploits out for linux stuff, and that list is growing. Linux servers get hacked all the time, for the same reason microsoft servers do - people either don't know what they're doing, or don't/cannot patch their systems. I've got a few boxen I admin that are ripe for the picking - I wince and cross my fingers every time I think of them.

On the desktop front, I run, and love, kde, but the level of "integration" does sometimes make me nervous - of course it's this same integration that has me running kde instead of xfce or fluxbox. However, historically this level of integration has proven probelmatic for security purposes. When hacking one app can cause it do get a dump from other apps, or make those apps behave in unintended ways (buffer overflow, what have you) security tends to nosedive. Now, again, I use and love kde, but a also expect that at some point we'll hear about issues arising from the level of integration it offers. Gnome, too.

Judland wrote:Having a discussion with our office IT guy this morning on reasons why Linux has less malware, spyware and viruses than Microsoft.

His answer is popularity (or lack there of). Linux is not as widely used as Microsoft (he obviously doesn't count Linux servers) and, therefore, not worth writing code for.

I didn't get into the whole idea that Linux powers much of the Net already, but I countered with this idea instead:

"Generally" when a person installs Linux, he/she chooses a particular distribution. Each Linux distribution, in more cases than not, have their own repositories of applications and files for their system. Usually, a person will use these repositories to get new software for their system.

To be considered a reputable Linux distribution, these repositories must be well maintained and free of malware, spyware, and such. If not, it wouldn't take long for the Linux community to learn about these shameful practices and stop using the distro. all together. Because there are so many Linux distributions to choose from, an offending distro. would be shut down (due to lack of interest) in no time.

In my opinion, this reason - above others (although still legitimate reasons) - is why we have such a "safe" operating environment when compared to other OSs.

Your thoughts?

Totally agree with you -

In addition all the repositories that I get software from are digitally signed which makes it just that much harder to infiltrate the integrity of the software.

I don't buy the popularity argument at all. It would take a lot more work (and I mean a lot more) to introduce spyware/viruses/malware into linux than windows.

I believe that this is why linux hasn't made a big splash headway. Because the spyware business is big business. From putting adds in front of users to the removal tool selling it is big business. It is also big business to sell all the other utilities to keep windows running. You just don't need that with Linux. If Linux became popular over night and everyone migrated the economy could take a hit. I am no economists but the market is slowly adjusting to Linux on the desktop and I truly believe we will see it in the future.

I think with the introduction of vista people will get tired of companies reaching into their wallet just to keep their computer functioning or to keep using software. I know I reached that point years ago and that is why I am nothing but a linux user. In the future I believe we will see some breach of the general population's information and that will mark the beginning of the end of vista because people want to control THEIR information - not some software company.

I think eventually spyware might be a problem. However seeing as how spyware comes from proprietary programs since you can't look at the source code Linux will be way less affected then Windows since most of the software that you will run will be free as in beer so they don't have to pirate software that more then likely has added spyware or trojans etc. Also since most of the software is made by communities they are less interested in making money by putting spyware in the programs unlike AOL (supposed the new AIM client is filled with spyware) and since the source code is open on most programs it would be hard to sneak it in. Not to mention the fact that most programs are in package repositories instead of spread over various websites that could be malicious. Overall I would say that won't be a big problem because of those reasons.

Lack of numbers may be part of the story, but for people looking for computers with horsepower, I would think linux servers a prime target, since they're usually packing some heat.

So then how much of a factor is it that linux has multi-user permissions built in? I know there are local root kit exploits, but for someone to even use these requires that someone have SSH open with a poor choice of username and password, and unpatched software to boot. There's a big difference between that and visiting a web site and getting infected with the default setup of the OS.

Then let's not forget about SELinux and AppArmor, both a great help to the security of a computer system. SELinux was a bear to set up on Gentoo, and it's hard to imagine someone cracking into that sucker once it was setup.

In the end, I just get tired of people who try to reduce this--and other things--down to a difference of degree, and think that this alone is meaningful. The difference between the rich and the poor is merely a difference of degree, but that doesn't make me think they're the same.

I have never bought the 'factor of numbers' theory.

Basically because is extremely shallow theory. First thing first, how does this malware operate? Until they change the way they operate, there is no case for linux.

Malware however could be any destructive code, which is different from spyware or virus exclusively.

I think there's less crap on Linux because it's more secure. Just the fact that you can't do anything on Linux unless you are root is a huge difference.

Linux is less attractive because it's a harder target. There are plenty of wide open Windows boxes out there. Why attack Linux?

Jza wrote:I have never bought the 'factor of numbers' theory.

Basically because is extremely shallow theory. First thing first, how does this malware operate? Until they change the way they operate, there is no case for linux.

Malware however could be any destructive code, which is different from spyware or virus exclusively.

Nor do I. Look, MacOS, Linux, and the commercial UNIX variants get it. From permissions to the design of the OS itself, MS doesnt get it and is in a catchup phase right now. For all of the things Vista is going to do right, they fucked up twice as much trying to do it the fastest way possible, not the RIGHT way. That is why Windows is flaky and vulnerable. If Apple, Red Hat, Novell, or Sun tried the shit that MS pulls day in and day out, Microsoft would still suck, but would have just as shameful company.