I would say your friends are essentially correct. To put an extreme example, there is only so much an operating system can do for security-unconscious users that will grant root permissions to an unknown executable that promises adult content or the Linux port of "Angry Birds." Knowledgeable and determined attackers can only be fended-off with an active security policy. However, the Linux software distribution model based on well-maintained centralized repositories will probably help in making casual infections more difficult. If those repos are compromised, though... L

Hope the [OT] labelling excuses me being verbose :) On 22/03/12 16:17, Louigi Verona wrote: I think there is a subtle yet substantial different between 'viruses' and 'malware' (and my thought is confirmed by wiwipedia [1]) A virus is traditionally a piece of code attached to an executable which you run and 'infects' the system and easily replicates when copied to other systems. In the old days it was really easy to get these by swapping floppy disks. Malware is a software which is intently programmed to perform unforeseen, unwanted, harmful activity, usually behind the back of the user. The degree of 'mal'-ness is to some degree subject to debate and user perception. E.g. a programme sending information to a server without the user knowingly accepting this could be considered malware, but many users are ok with this. So could be considered a programme that once removed from the system leaves an hidden or hard to remove trace (e.g. some anti-piracy mechanisms do this). Or simply a programme which changes your homepage or default search engine. The most obvious way I could see some-one 'catching' a virus for linux would be execute a programme with viral code. I think this is much more unlikely in linux due to e.g. distribution packaging, massive presence of open source (and thus the many eyes), no user/consumer antivirus market. As for malware one could say that a harmful script (say one that does rm /) is malware, I would take it a little further saying that to define it malware the user should be tricked into executing it. In both cases you can see how proprietary is the 'bad guy' in all of this. How do you know that skype isn't malware when you doenload a binary .deb blob and install it? Even on linux? Lorenzo. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

Reply to All / Reply to List On Thursday 22 March 2012 18.17.46 Louigi Verona wrote: Hey guys! This is an Offtopic question, really, but I wanted to ask people I know and people who are developers - what are the reasons there are (almost) no viruses on Linux? The typical argument is that there are not too much users. ... If I should take a wild guess, It was not so many Windows users in numbers back in around 1992/1993 either, but the number of viruses and Co. was around 16 000. So yes, that number argument is not really good. The smaller number of viruses and other problems in Linux is in my opinion mainly because of this: * The simplicity in file structure. Most programs and libraries can be normally be found in just a few paths, which generally makes it easier to control things. This structures also makes it easier to install and run programs without being an admin and messing with the system. * It is the distro vendors that are doing the hard work of upgrading packages as fast as possible when a security hole are discovered. In a main stream distro like Ubuntu, this can happen more that one time at day if needed. In Windows this is once a week and in OSX, it can take many weeks if they fix it. This is a very serious thing. Many packages are in use in both Linux, Windows and OSX, If I'm not mistaking, Openssl is one of them. So when the world knows about security holes, it might take long time before MS and Apple fix it. So to sum it up: The distro take care of most of it in Linux, MS and Apple usually only care about the OS related stuff. In addition: for MS, antivirus and other security programs are central for keeping things healthy. The passive nature of the Unix systems are probably better here. *Speaking about packages: They are often open sourced, and many eyes can identify and solve problems. This was only tree points, but one can probably find more. But now, I will go and watch TV! :-) Jostein

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 18:17 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote: Maybe "typical" in Redmond... the typical sane argument is that users on Lignux systems only have write access to their home directories, which the system does not run software from by default. Windows, on the other hand, traditionally had users running with complete access to the system. Add to the mix notoriously flaky low-quality code, slow moving development, and a core system built from numerous layers of piled legacy crap, and it'd be shocking if exploits *didn't* run rampant. Anyone claiming that any system would have been as badly affected in Windows' situation has no idea what they're talking about. The system essentially didn't have any form of security whatsoever. The security model wasn't flawed, it *wasn't there*. You didn't have to exploit the system to get viruses and malware on it, you just had to get the user to run something. Windows isn't a victim of its own popularity, it's a victim of being crap. -dr