How to Write a Linux Virus in 5 Easy Steps

Status
Not open for further replies.

ogre9001

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2008
6
0
18,510
0
To all of the brilliant Linux virus writers....Why is it that you keep making these claims, but nothing ever comes of them?
I have read for the past decade about all of these threats that will show linux to be just as vulnerable as windows to viruses.
Did I miss some news?
I don't remember hearing about the massive virus attack that took down thousands of linux servers and turned linux workstations into spambot networks numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
I look at this the same as I look at the annual threat of an attack that will completely lock down the internet.
Deleted by Moderator
 

echdskech

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2007
89
0
18,630
0
from the linked article:

f course, that also means that the mail attachment will have this extension as well. Some users may notice, many others will not.
This type of malware doesn't exploit the OS so much as it does the user's intelligence. As we all know, no matter how id10t-proof we make systems, someone just builds a better id10t.

Ofcourse, maybe the reason for Linux's reputation of security comes as much from the min IQ requirement of using 'ye olde Linux arcane distros as it is in the OS design. Recent distros are becoming more and more user friendly and therefore lowering aforementioned requirement.

I suppose it is a necessary evil if it ever hopes to appeal to as broad an audience as Windows. I just hope the dev guys can keep up to prevent it from being a cesspool. =/
 

batkerson

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2008
69
0
18,640
3
I sincerely believe that the security any computer system is primarily the responsibility -- i.e., the result of design and implementation -- of the OS. The dept. of justice dropped the ball a few years back when, ultimately, it did not require the breakup of MS into operating system and applications companies. If MS truly would concentrate on the efficiency, and security, of the OS rather than on bells and whistles that few people need and even fewer actually want, then, oh, what a Windows we would (probably) have. MS is so intent on adding "functionality" or appearance that their security division (or whatever it's called internally) has a moving target to protect. To MS: stop adding functionality for an OS cycle or two and pour all your money into efficiency and security THEN, when the OS is ready, move forward with the other "stuff".

My 2 cents.
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
[citation][nom]batkerson[/nom]I sincerely believe that the security any computer system is primarily the responsibility -- i.e., the result of design and implementation -- of the OS. The dept. of justice dropped the ball a few years back when, ultimately, it did not require the breakup of MS into operating system and applications companies. If MS truly would concentrate on the efficiency, and security, of the OS rather than on bells and whistles that few people need and even fewer actually want, then, oh, what a Windows we would (probably) have. MS is so intent on adding "functionality" or appearance that their security division (or whatever it's called internally) has a moving target to protect. To MS: stop adding functionality for an OS cycle or two and pour all your money into efficiency and security THEN, when the OS is ready, move forward with the other "stuff".My 2 cents.[/citation]

Splitting Microsoft wouldn't change anything. Besides, by having it together, it would actually offer them better interoperability and releases on schedules.

Besides, the any OS is just as vulnerable as the other. They're simply lines of codes, some better implemented than others. They still can be brought down to its knees.
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,707
0
19,860
43
With the MAC ads on TV and elsewhere thumbing up their noses at viruses, I think it's only a matter of time before virus writers take up the challenge, that is unless virus writers are MAC people themselves.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
There is no away to idiot-prove any system. If the user don't know what he/she is doing, he/she will be victim of social-engineering attack. For that you don't need to write any viruses. Just ask them for their username and password and they happily will give them to you.
Even if some one writes a virus for Linux that some how runs automatically or by users action the worst damage would be to the users profile, not the core of the system. You need to spend really great time and effort to misconfigure the Linux in order to have the same level of problems like Windows. I think MS is taking notice of that and the new Windows Server 2008 is much better. Who is going to take on the task to teach the users?!
 

Flameout

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
105
0
18,680
0
There's no such thing as 100% security, even for Linux. It may have something to do with how Linux is coded, but for the most part, it's because Linux runs only on about 1% of the worlds computers. Whenever I install a linux distro on someones pc, I don't say "you'll never get a virus or malware/spyware" I say "the chances of getting a virus or malware/spyware is about 1 in 100"
 

scryer_360

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
I've heard of these claims before: that Linux systems are just as vulnerable. But I've never seen any evidence of an actual effective form of attack. Of course, you can still do all sorts of network based-attacks, to bring down a connection, but to actually take control over a Linux system? I've never seen it.

And there are many things in a Linux system that keeps it safe, sometimes by being overly simplistic even. I don't think any OS is bullet-proof: if it can be built, it can be torn down, if torn down, it can be built. Still, I do believe their are varying degrees of difficulty. This is what keeps people strong in the belief of Linux.

Besides, if Linux were so easy to crack, then I'd imagine we'd here much, much more often about how servers at major companies and institutions are being taken over by crackers.
 

ozarkamax

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2009
56
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]ogre9001[/nom]To all of the brilliant Linux virus writers....Why is it that you keep making these claims, but nothing ever comes of them?I have read for the past decade about all of these threats that will show linux to be just as vulnerable as windows to viruses. Did I miss some news? I don't remember hearing about the massive virus attack that took down thousands of linux servers and turned linux workstations into spambot networks numbering in the hundreds of thousands.I look at this the same as I look at the annual threat of an attack that will completely lock down the internet.Instead of telling us over and over again how big your cock is, why don't you go ahead and whip it out. I for one am up for the laugh.[/citation]

quite possibly because nobody gives a hoot about linux. i don't believe this is a quest to prove the better OS. it is simply to prove that going with linux over windows because it is more "secure" , the in thing, makes you feel smart, is very naive.

 

ozarkamax

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2009
56
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]batkerson[/nom]I sincerely believe that the security any computer system is primarily the responsibility -- i.e., the result of design and implementation -- of the OS. The dept. of justice dropped the ball a few years back when, ultimately, it did not require the breakup of MS into operating system and applications companies. If MS truly would concentrate on the efficiency, and security, of the OS rather than on bells and whistles that few people need and even fewer actually want, then, oh, what a Windows we would (probably) have. MS is so intent on adding "functionality" or appearance that their security division (or whatever it's called internally) has a moving target to protect. To MS: stop adding functionality for an OS cycle or two and pour all your money into efficiency and security THEN, when the OS is ready, move forward with the other "stuff".My 2 cents.[/citation]

you can't fix stupid. no matter how secure you make it, somebody somewhere will turn it off no matter what it is. that said, the security of the system is the responsibility of the owner. MS norton AVG all those companies can only provide tools but they cant make you use them or force them upon you.

nor can you claim any such company is liable for damages caused to your computer as a result of a 3rd party/software infecting your system with malicious intent.
 
G

Guest

Guest
There's quite a few people that believe Microsoft security "flaws" are actually backdoors left there on purpose. If this non-flaming post is quickly downgraded or not posted at all, I believe that should be sufficient evidence that it's true ;)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Dream on - the real answer is in the design of the OS itself. Windows is terribly flawed by design as a head for tail OS design. Popularity has very little to do with it at all. Its more a matter of the vulnerability of the design. Its time to rewrite Windows from the ground up. Also, as it has been said so many times before - all this talk - still nothing in the wild. Even the supposed Mac virus required the - quote 'Id10t User' unquote - to enable it to run. No such rules protect the head for tail design implemented in Windows. Lets stop this nonsense and do away with this so often repeated Stockholm Syndrome. Please!
 

salem80

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2008
279
0
18,780
0
Windows infected by virus even with .Pictures and video clips "in flv too ".
just look for " HTML.IFrame.TB Trojan "(it's come with Picture while u surfing the web)..
if there's more games in Linux i will never use window again ...
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]ozarkamax[/nom]quite possibly because nobody gives a hoot about linux. i don't believe this is a quest to prove the better OS. it is simply to prove that going with linux over windows because it is more "secure" , the in thing, makes you feel smart, is very naive.[/citation]A very large number of servers on the Internet run Linux for a good reason - it's more secure. Even foobar's "worm" only works because of a bad design decision in KDE and Gnome, and does not work with XFCE and it's file manager Thunar. It's not a Linux problem as it affects any OS using KDE and Gnome. You obviously have no clue about Windows and Linux administration. Tuan Nguyen is ignorant and just trolling for clicks. I'm running Adblock Plus to compensate.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]Flameout[/nom]There's no such thing as 100% security, even for Linux. It may have something to do with how Linux is coded, but for the most part, it's because Linux runs only on about 1% of the worlds computers. Whenever I install a linux distro on someones pc, I don't say "you'll never get a virus or malware/spyware" I say "the chances of getting a virus or malware/spyware is about 1 in 100"[/citation]It's all around you - just look:

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.tomshardware.com
Netblock Owner IP address OS Web Server Last changed
BSO Communication, Paris 212.73.209.9 Linux BSOCOM WebCache 12-Feb-2009
 
G

Guest

Guest
Agree that: - Under Linux, no viruses because it is not popular, it is absurd!
Linux, * BSD, MAC OS, used in
servers and workstations - usually where security is needed.
Linux, BSD, Darwin - do professionals from all over the world! Use of mainly professionals.
Proposed fee for the virus code for these systems - * money is not who is not won;)
Viruses under these systems do not.

PS No need to confuse the virus, here is this;
#! / bin / bash /
rm-R *.*
:)
 

Darkk

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2003
615
0
18,980
0
Folks - I don't give a rat's ass which is OS superior over the other. It's really user education on how to safely read e-mails and not go to the known sites that constantly try to infect your PC with some kind of a malware.

I don't think Linux is any different. I personally been using Ubuntu for the past several months and it's not perfect. I do have CLAMAV running in the background but most of the viruses are designed for Windows so makes me wonder why I even bother to run it in the first place? I guess it's a sense of false security I've had with windows.

It's really common sense for people NOT opening unknown e-mail attachments and visit dangerous websites.

So honestly Linux isn't secure as windows, just it's harder to get infected if the user pays attention to the pop up warnings.

 

njalterio

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2008
780
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]ogre9001[/nom]To all of the brilliant Linux virus writers....Why is it that you keep making these claims, but nothing ever comes of them?I have read for the past decade about all of these threats that will show linux to be just as vulnerable as windows to viruses. Did I miss some news? I don't remember hearing about the massive virus attack that took down thousands of linux servers and turned linux workstations into spambot networks numbering in the hundreds of thousands.I look at this the same as I look at the annual threat of an attack that will completely lock down the internet.Instead of telling us over and over again how big your cock is, why don't you go ahead and whip it out. I for one am up for the laugh.[/citation]

That's because there aren't hundreds of thousands linux workstations, dumbass.
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]A very large number of servers on the Internet run Linux for a good reason - it's more secure. Even foobar's "worm" only works because of a bad design decision in KDE and Gnome, and does not work with XFCE and it's file manager Thunar. It's not a Linux problem as it affects any OS using KDE and Gnome. You obviously have no clue about Windows and Linux administration. Tuan Nguyen is ignorant and just trolling for clicks. I'm running Adblock Plus to compensate.[/citation]

Now you're just trolling and degrading yourself by flaming the author.

Did you even read the damn article? He just reposted what someone else wrote to generate discussion, but not from the likes of you.

Go away from Tom's Hardware before you flame more.
 

WheelsOfConfusion

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
705
0
18,980
0
Generally speaking, Linux -is- inherently more secure than Windows, because it's harder for an outside attacker to gain the kind of root or superuser privileges that would let them get control. It's not impossible, and compromises do happen, though. Windows moved in the right direction with UAC, which in theory should offer similar protection.

It's not just that Windows is more popular: in the server world, Linux and Unix-like are more popular. But there are also many different Linux distributions which have different things tacked on, making it more diverse a target than Microsoft's options. What works to compromise a Debian-based system might not work in a Red Hat one, or Gentoo. They also have their own communities working to patch and secure them, and anyone can contribute a patch to fix up some vulnerability.
 

Greatwalrus

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
108
0
18,680
0
Some of the best comments here are

1) This virus does not work with different file managers and desktop environments such as Thunar and Xfce. (jhansonxi)

2) It's hard for an outside attacker to gain root or superuser priveleges that would let them get control. (WheelsOfConfusion)

3) Related to #2, most viruses would only effect the user's profile, not the core of the system - since it is protected by the superuser. (SAL-e)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY