Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
Matt wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>>> JD writes:
>
>
>>> The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100
>> viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist
>> and are growing in number.
>>
>> The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of
>> thing with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather
>> small market share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude
>> of systems then you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate
>> it. And as Linux becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and
>> lose that 'feature' Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make
>> it more popular. The curse of success.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1
>
>
> Myth: There's Safety In Small Numbers
>
> Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security
> is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans
> and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their
> activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed
> base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows
> applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and
> Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you
> don't see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true,
> at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true:
> That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and
> Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to
> bother attacking.
>
> This reasoning backfires when one considers that Apache is by far the
> most popular web server software on the Internet. According to the
> September 2004 Netcraft web site survey, [1] 68% of web sites run the
> Apache web server. Only 21% of web sites run Microsoft IIS. If security
> problems boil down to the simple fact that malicious hackers target the
> largest installed base, it follows that we should see more worms,
> viruses, and other malware targeting Apache and the underlying operating
> systems for Apache than for Windows and IIS. Furthermore, we should see
> more successful attacks against Apache than against IIS, since the
> implication of the myth is that the problem is one of numbers, not
> vulnerabilities.
>
> Yet this is precisely the opposite of what we find, historically. IIS
> has long been the primary target for worms and other attacks, and these
> attacks have been largely successful. The Code Red worm that exploited a
> buffer overrun in an IIS service to gain control of the web servers
> infected some 300,000 servers, and the number of infections only stopped
> because the worm was deliberately written to stop spreading. Code Red.A
> had an even faster rate of infection, although it too self-terminated
> after three weeks. Another worm, IISWorm, had a limited impact only
> because the worm was badly written, not because IIS successfully
> protected itself.
>
> Yes, worms for Apache have been known to exist, such as the Slapper
> worm. (Slapper actually exploited a known vulnerability in OpenSSL, not
> Apache). But Apache worms rarely make headlines because they have such a
> limited range of effect, and are easily eradicated. Target sites were
> already plugging the known OpenSSL hole. It was also trivially easy to
> clean and restore infected site with a few commands, and without as much
> as a reboot, thanks to the modular nature of Linux and UNIX.
>
> Perhaps this is why, according to Netcraft, 47 of the top 50 web sites
> with the longest running uptime (times between reboots) run Apache. [2]
> None of the top 50 web sites runs Windows or Microsoft IIS. So if it is
> true that malicious hackers attack the most numerous software platforms,
> that raises the question as to why hackers are so successful at breaking
> into the most popular desktop software and operating system, infect
> 300,000 IIS servers, but are unable to do similar damage to the most
> popular web server and its operating systems?
One of the problems in having someone else do your 'arguing' for you is
it's often the wrong argument. To wit, I never claimed what the article
argues about: that Linux is "no more secure than Windows" and made no
qualitative or quantitative comparison at all, one way or the other. What I
*have* done is rebut the broad brush claims Linux fanatics throw out simply
from worship.
The article is quite similar, jumbling O.S. and 'applications' as well as
desktop and server markets and assuming all motivations translate equally.
Isn't it amusing that when Linux aficionados want to apologize for 'ease of
use' issues the GUI is "not a part of Linux" but suddenly "Apache" is, even
though it's cross platform.
The logic that attackers would necessarily go for the most popular 'server'
presumes they aren't going after 'Windows' in the generic simply because
'Windows', including desktops, is not only the overwhelming market share
but from, as I mentioned, the inherent hatred of MS and 'Bill Gates' that
permeates in certain circles. If you want to attack 'the demon devil' then
you attack him in all his manifestations. Secondly, because of the
overwhelming market share of 'Windows', and Windows related products, you
have an overwhelming number of programmers more familiar with it and,
hence, better prepared to attack it. The article's presumption of 'motive',
as well as opportunity, do not hold. (Mxsmaniac had other valid points that
I will not repeat but simply say I agree with, at least to the extent that
they're possibilities.)
What is true is the point I originally made, that Linux is not 'immune' or
invulnerable to viruses, trojans, DoS, and other attacks (and my
speculation that they'll increase as, or if, Linux becomes more popular).
And the near hysterical response to the fact that Linux viruses exists,
regardless of how many, just highlights that they're responding from
emotional O.S. worship (HERESY! My O.S. has no flaws!) rather than any
rational argument.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram