TisMe said:
ParrotRob wrote:
: :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:38 -0400, ParrotRob wrote:
::
::: :::: Le Fri, 21 May 2004 08:30:24 -0700, Tracker a écrit :
<snip the tracker BS>
::::
:::: Easier: install Linux...it's virusproof !
:::
::: Please tell me you're kidding and that this was a tongue-in-cheek
::: comment poking a little fun at linuxheads?
::
::
:: No, he's right. Basically.
::
:
: OK, you're right, linux is, in fact, "virusproof". And the Titanic
: was unsinkable.
:
: There are all sorts of virii, worms and trojans out there. Most of
: them are Apache- or FTP-related, for sure, but to claim linux as
: "virusproof" is a little over the top. It probably also has a little
: to do with the relative (versus Windows) non-existance of linux out
: there. Put linux on 500+ million desktops and see how fast the
: relatively small infection numbers associated with things like
: Slapper grow. And how fast new exploits show up.
Correct me if I am wrong on this. Windows is running the same on every
machine.
Wrong. Windows is running and doing whatever it takes to make
the machine *appear* the same to any application software it runs.
It supplies an abstraction called a "virtual machine" for whatever
the application needs.
Except for the software they have on their PC that is the only difference
from one Windows box to the next.
There is a certain amount of "sameness" about Windows machines
(partially due to software application bundling) that is a large part
of the problem.
Linux is different, first their probably are not two Linux machines
running the same except maybe a close relationship of them that
may be running in a office setting.
Yes, this is one thing that I see as an advantage as things now stand.
However, Linux is going down the same road to some extent with
distros bundling applications. Unfortunately, the way to get more
users on Linux is to compromise on this advantage that they now
enjoy.
Linux doesn't have a autorun feature for anything that may enter
the box. So for a virus to propagate from one file to the next is
almost impossible.
A lot depends on the applications being used, most vulnerabilities
apply to the applications rather than the OS itself in both Windows
and Linux.
Also Linux has a great deal of distributions, for which the users of Linux
could be running any one of them. This makes it harder for a virus writer
to write for Linux and carry out a mass virus attack on Linux.
I don't thik that the Linux virus problem will ever be as large as the
Windows virus problem, mostly due to this "sameness" issue, but
consider that most Linux users will have source code files within
the users purview. You may see types of viruses that haven't seen
much success, with Windows having the greater marketshare, start
to crop up. There doesn't seem to me to be that much difference
between a virus that writes script into interpretable text files and
one that writes script into source code files that eventually get to
be compiled and executed. Wasn't there already a virus that did
"infect" at the source code level?
There are just to many combinations of Linux out there. It doesn't
mean Linux is immune to a virus. it just means it's harder for a virus
writer to write, and distribute a virus that will do the same damage
as if they had wrote one for Windows.
....and they need such a challenge - there have been far too many
lame "day-zero" mass-mailers being written and distributed via
Windows' oh-so-easy malware hosting boxen.
Windows biggest pitfall is the fact that files can auto run on their own
with no help from a user.
If Windows didn't have this feature, then a virus wouldn't be able to infect
computers as easily.
Most of this is application based, not really the OS. I wouldn't be
too surprised to find Linux apps doing stupid things either.
So is it safe to say that if Bill Gates did away with the auto run feature
of Windows, that Windows boxes would be safer?
What Linux zealots refer to as an autorun feature is actually an exploit
of a vulnerability. Linux is not without vulnerabilities, although arguably
Linux users are better about keeping their software current.
....this too may change as more clueless users are drawn to Linux.
How about the auto send in email too?
Auto send?
I kind of think that the auto send feature would be handled a little
bit different because a virus doesn't need to use Outlook Express
in order to mass mail.
Worms are another story. Viruses don't necessarily send
themselves anywhere.
They would have to come up with a feature for the
ports used to send email right?
I think Windows XP was the first Microsoft OS to bundle a firewall
application with the OS distribution - and at that it is only stateful
incoming control. It is not the OS's fault if the users don't feel the
need or want of a firewall that controls outgoing traffic.
