Linux viruses

[Briab Guy]

I just read this at another post.
2. Security - virtually no viruses no adware and a generally better security model out of the box;
They were just explaining some of the positives of Linux. Where I am lost is I would have thought that Linux had more viruses because of the open source.
So what I am wondering is what precautions should I look foward to taking with Linux? Concerning viruses and security?
Thanks again

[Blue_Gundam2002]

Linux is pretty much the most secure os. Most distros come with a firewall you can install if you want. There are very few if any linux virus' because no one hates linux. People hate windows, mainly gates, and so they make the virus.

[mairving]

Linux security is better than Microsoft but it is still subject to the same thing that causes problems on the other side...the user. Some Linux distros don't even require a root password. The biggest problem that Linux presents is that it can sometimes install everything but the kitchen sink which makes those 'kitchen sink' programs more suspectible to exploits, particularly if your system isn't behind a firewall or router.

So it is more vulnerable to hacking and exploits but virtually invulnerable to viruses.

I wouldn't call it the most secure OS. That honor would probably go to OpenBSD.

[Mac Medic]

Blue_Gundam2002 is partially correct in so much as people hate M$ and a number of viruses have included portions of code that will attack microsoft.com As to Linux viruses being sparse because people don't hate it, well thats partially true, but the main reason is that viruses will not spread with Linux the same way they do with windows. For a Unix/Linux/OS X user to become infected would require the user to execute the malicious code, provide it with an administrator (root) username and password and actually give it permission to run. Compare this to the Windows environment where code can run at the root level without any user intervention and you have your answer. A virus would die out fairly quickly with Linux, wheres they keep going and going on Windoze thus providing a very tempting platform to virus writers. If M$ would release an OS that required authentication to install and run a program then the same would be true of windows also, the infection would just fail to spread. I'm afraid the "security through obscurity" argument has been discredited too many time with the facts to even sound credible to M$ anymore.

OEM guy is right. linux is safer because it doesnt automaticly exicute files.

[cypher1919]

Linux also is not as widely used as Windows. If and when linux gets into a more user friendly newbie mode for the regular everyday end user(god help us), then we could all expect the close to the same problems with kiddie scripts and what not

[aym]

Users are a very big part of the problem, and appear to be willing to open attachments no matter how many times they were told not to.

Even if the distro doesn't give the user root privs (I'm not aware of any distro that does so other than live CDs anyway), they will switch to root and run the attachment for some reason or another.

Take the Bagle worm for example, it sends itself as an encrypted zip file, and yet, users are willing to open the zip file, enter the password, and then run the file inside it.

The OS isn't the one to be blamed sometimes, it's the user.

On the other hand, Outlook express still seems to execute code when an email is previewed in the preview pane, this time it's not the users fault.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Here is an article . It has a pretty good take on the situation. There are about 100 Linux Viruses. Recently one was built that can infect both Linux and Windows machines.

[mairving]

The W32/Winux virus (the one mentioned as cross-platform) is really just a theory and is not in the wild. It has never infected any system and requires Windows to start. Only poorly built Linux systems integrated into a Windows environment would be vulnerable.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Mairving, I know it was a proof of concept construction. If something can be built in a cage, it can be built in the wild. My point is that we shouldn't become complacent about the virus security. At the very least we need to recognize that Linux servers can be transporters of windows viri, and we need to all install anti-virus software on our linux servers and desktops to catch the windows viri that show up from time to time.

[mairving]

I would say that most of the time there is no need to do so. I have 4 'nix servers at work. A couple of them have Samba installed on them. One is a fileserver that I do weekly scans on the shares from a Windows computer since viruses could live there. The others really have no need since they don't have a desktop and no email clients on them.

[GhostRecon]

Linux is the best!

[ccrn]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002 If M$ would release an OS that required authentication to install and run a program

I know very little at this point so I could be way off base, but it seems to me that MS has a vested interest in making sure their OS's allow programs to run without the knowledge of the user.

The last time I scanned my PC for spyware I found 88 data miners, 85 of them were from MS patches.

Go figure...

I am so sick of this, ppl are suing MS over stupid mediaplayers yet nothing is done about this intrusion of privacy?

[CrazyMike]

Does anyone know of any big Linux viruses? It would be interesting to look them up.