Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus,linux malware

[RayLopez99]

Linux has viruses and malware. See below.

Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
cultists.

RL

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
Review (english)

The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
with business support packages available,
means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
are becoming more important. Security
software for Linux is needed not only to
protect the computer itself, but also to
prevent malicious code aimed at other
systems, such as Windows, being passed
through the system. To counter such threats,
ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
review, we installed the 32-bit Business
Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
a Home Edition of the program, and both
Home and Business versions come in 32 and
64-bit versions.

 

[RayLopez99]

It actually explains to you why.

WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.

In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?

I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.

Don't be so pissy Hadron. We still play on the same team. We are
both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. The enemy
of my enemy is my friend. And you are my friend. For now.

And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
details. It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.

Have a nice day,

 

[RayLopez99]

I'm not on a team.

In your mind you are not on a team. But in fact you are, de facto, on
a team: the anti-Linux team. And welcome to the team. We have
already prevailed, and the rest now is mopping up action. At one
point, as a MSFT shareholder in the late 90s (you can see my handle,
which I have not changed, posting to even this newsgroup back then) I
was genuinely afraid of Linux getting market share from MSFT. But no
longer. Open source, like communism, had a short run then died out.
For largely the same reasons as Karl Marx's pseudo-scientific
philosophy.

I dont hate Linux in the slightest. I hate COLA "advocates".

Yes, but you have to admit it's fun to beat up on these retards, who
show a certain monolithic approach to reality. The putative German
Peter Kohlman is typical (I think also his English is limited, so he
tends to stick to stereotypical responses, which is common for EFL
students).

So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?

Largely I take it for not "passing on" viruses to Windows based
systems when Linux is acting as a server? Or what is your take?
Honestly I don't care--this is bad news for Linux, and I hope this
thread grows so the keywords "linux has viruses", "linux has malware",
"Linux is unsafe" get indexed by Google to help future users stay away
from Linux.

No one else came to your conclusion give or take.

No, read the response by the Hispanic surname'd poster who supported
me.

Have a nice day,

RL

 

[Norman Peelman]

It actually explains to you why.

Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit.

WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.

In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?

I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.

Which was his intent all along.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
[snip the blather]

Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager on
the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an urgent
message to install them right now.

Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.

a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and execute,
it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most single-user
systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one below sudo,
usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's
surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links, etc.

b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth
attacks, no matter what the OS.

there is however a subtle difference with linux, and that is there are a
lot of distros, and kernel versions and indeed 32 and 64 bit mixtures
out there.


Depending on the vulnerability you are exploiting, that may narrow the
target base to a very small percentage of Linux distros indeed.

Thats for real rootkit stuff

I accept that malware that makes - say firefox or java - do something
like dumping your hone directory somewhere - is a different kettle of
fish. But I think if that happened to me id notice the odd 30 gigs of
data spewing outwards..


As for downloadable executables, well the free aspect and te siource
code aspects is a real barrier. when I go looking for free odd bits of
code, chances are its so reputable - like Mozilla that i can trust it
or its doesn't work without me compiling it.

The click/download/install thing simply isn't Linux. It IS OSX and it
IS windows however.

So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be surprised
at that?

In principle everything is. What is interesting is in what ways and how
much, and the answer is 'few, and far between' for many reasons.

Which makes the statement 'its far safer than windows or OSX' eaningful.

 

[RayLopez99]

So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
not it is a good choice for them.  And you therefore hope that
misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.

I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that.  It is
certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
same time.

<snip>

Ad hominem noted. Rest of your post not read.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

read more »

Read less. Less is more and you are a bore.

RL

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Whoever told you that nonsense?

Linux can be and is hacked.

That's something else entirely.

You pretty much have to lie through your teeth to make the original
argument seem plausible. You have to depend on your audience not fully
understanding what's being discussed.

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

<snip>

Ad hominem noted. Rest of your post not read.

He was actually very nice to you. In reality, you are dumber than a stump

 

[Dustin]

WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.

Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
a whole.

 

[Dustin]

I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there is
also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer
from malware and other threats than Windows is. It is certainly

I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT
systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which is
responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux isn't
any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being deployed
and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the admin who's
responsible if security is amiss.

possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe. I run the IT
department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
attacks, or worms. But it is both realistic and responsible to say

Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser
vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them
surf with administrator rights.

If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about
your Linux security. If you are a typical home user - install Linux
and forget about security and malware.

The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often.
It's proprietary junk.

No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a
different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
Linux on desktops. But the majority of people using Linux are
people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people

Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
illusion of better security as a result.

 

[Dustin]

On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
[snip the blather]

Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update
Manager on the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually
with an urgent message to install them right now.

Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not
impossible.

a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and
execute, it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most
single-user systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just
one below sudo, usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch
of evil stuff. It's surprisingly easy to persuade people to download
stuff, open links, etc.

b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to
stealth attacks, no matter what the OS.

So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be
surprised at that?

Ciao,
Wolf K.

[BIG GRIN]

 

[Chris Ahlstrom]

David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
(The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
threats even more.

Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout the
years, isn't it?

Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the globe, from
its roots with a telephony provider.

Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots with
"Traf-O-Data".

That's a key difference.

 

[Bobbie Sellers]

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of OS
makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a solid
network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet and the
desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make sure users
have decent training in security, then you are pretty safe. But with
Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it directly to any
network I want, and let anyone use it as they want. Very roughly
speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep Windows safe - you
have to know what you are doing to make Linux unsafe.


Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few. The most annoying
to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus. We had a
worm that got into a few machines - the source was an employee who
brought in their laptop to download a windows service pack that blocked
said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at home. Needless to say
that employee got a keelhauling for connecting an outside machine to the
company network.

We also had a few spyware and porn/casino pop-up problems, until we
(that is, I) banned Internet Exploder about 10 years ago.


PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.

However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the user
interface is normally on a PC. Mess up them, and you've messed up the
plant.


No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
(The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
threats even more.

QNX is the bulletproof high reliability proprietary OS used to control
power plants and other vital functions. We nearly got to use
it with the Amiga but the Amiga IP holders(Gateway at the time) finally
could not agree with the QNX company. You can Google QNX which was
a Canadian company the last time I looked.

Linux by the way is more secure than Windows OSes I have
seen but the NT I have never used. XP had rotten internal security
and still came setup to be infected. XP Pro was supposed to have
better internal security between accounts but it did not. Linux
does have real accounts secured from each other. Only the root
user can undertake certain tasks. That alone should put it
in lots of family homes and networks. Social hacking or
subversions getting passwords and other data by subterfuge
can easily be done by the charmingly malicious.
But any PC with access to bootable media can
be opened like a book and read at leisure if the relevant
contents are not encrypted. With multi-core, multiprocessor
units available to a well-funded agency solving encryption
may not take more than a day.

Revolutionaries better use paper for planning,
quill pens and liquid ink or brushes and ink cakes.

bliss

 

[JEDIDIAH]

Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
a whole.

You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

So where's all the malware?

 

[JEDIDIAH]

All you have to do is look at Android Linux being humped like a dog by
malware writers, because the masses are using Android.

Android suffers from trojans in binaries distributed from dodgey
3rd party app stores in China. It's not quite the same thing as what
has plagued Windows and DOS since the dawn of time.

Although there is the occasional PC game or app that comes with
conveniently infected installation disks.

 

[Snit]

JEDIDIAH stated in post (e-mail address removed) on 8/31/11 3:57
PM:

You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

Mac users, on average, are better educated than Windows users... and, I
believe, have higher IQs.

Of course, this is likely associated with Macs not being found at the low
end, but so be it.

So where's all the malware?

There is far less than their is for Android Linux.

 

[RayLopez99]

Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
illusion of better security as a result.

--

That's so true Dustin. Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
share.

BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
(administrator rights).

As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when,
as you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD
that was a virus--no fault then of Windows.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

There was one famous Linux virus.  It was an email that read something
like this :

Hi!  This is the Linux virus.  Please delete a bunch of your files at
random, then pass me on to everyone in your address book.

It was the only Linux virus that had any noticeable circulation.

But there was a Windows variant many moon sago that got me once (and
I'm smarter than you) that said "if you have this system file,
XYZ.sys, delete it since it is a virus"--I did so, making a backup
copy of the file, thinking I could restore the system, and ended up
having to do a clean reinstall. But it was a home system where I had
backed-up the data so I lost nothing but half a day reinstalling.

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

On 8/31/2011 5:15 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
..

Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a
damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite..

Hahaha! Good one Big Steel. That's right, Dustin is a clown who has
written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of the
leading programmers in the world. Chris Ahlstrom is so dumb that (as
he admitted in COLA) he once gave out vital personal information about
his teenage daughter and his wife to an internet stalker. Or at least
that was the impression I got. A real family man, Piss Angstrom is.

RL