Windows, Linux and Viruses

[Ghost [PX]]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html

Excellent article about how windows is a disease sponge and Linux isnt. Its very well written and fairly unbiased.

[[PX]IronFist]

While this article is fairly well written and addresses some of issues to do with virus' in the windows environment, it tends to focus mainly on social engineering, which may have some bearing on the average user, but I believe it to be a moot point of most of us.

One of his main points has to do with the fact that most users of windows use the administrator or "root" user account and as such they expose their computers sensitive bits to a potential virus. I for one never want to run my computer in a user account with restricted privleges and the degree to which Windows restricts my access to system files even now angers me.
So, for people like us, this isn't really an issue. Hopefully, people who work in big companies would not have access to the admin account anyway. That leaves us with home users who have access to the admin account and don't know what their doing, and I think that if these people screw-up their data than it's their own fault.
His second point kind of branches off the first and talks about how Linux has multiple prompts and a complicated system for viewing attachments, or executing executables, and this is seen as better security. I am already annoyed enough when I click somthing and windows asks me if I want to open it, or if I am sure that I want to perform a certain action. If I clicked it then I want it open, end of story. I don't want to go through alot of crap to get it to work.
Basically, this article seems to be saying that Linux is a good operating system for stupid people because it's too complex for them to do anything really damaging, which is probably a good thing but does nothing to address any security concerns that I might have.

On a side note, he does address the degree with which applications in windows tend to mingle their code with the OS, and I agree that this is one of the largest problems with Windows and I would be much happier if MS would address that issue.

[Ghost [PX]]

it tends to focus mainly on social engineering, which may have some bearing on the average user, but I believe it to be a moot point of most of us.

I never specifically said that this was targeted towards us. I just found it to be of interest, and figured others might as well. But I agree with you, most of this doesnt apply to us since we tend to be very careful since funlove....

One of his main points has to do with the fact that most users of windows use the administrator or "root" user account and as such they expose their computers sensitive bits to a potential virus. I for one never want to run my computer in a user account with restricted privleges and the degree to which Windows restricts my access to system files even now angers me.

The fact that most people do run as admin when their in windows is primarily the problem. Because of stupidity and the lack of restrictions viruses can run rampant. Due to the very nature of Linux and its users this cant happen since 99.9% of linux users only log into root for short periods of time for maintenence. Most commercial distributions even set up the user accounts so that they can do whatever they want(ie not as root, but with access to everything they may need, with the exception of OS files), but still prevent damage to the system from occuring, whether it be through virus or stupid little children. I can understand how irritating it is to have restrictions (I myself had frustrations when porting over) but you very rarely need to switch to root for maintenance or installation since most programs will install locally into the home directory of the user in question.

His second point kind of branches off the first and talks about how Linux has multiple prompts and a complicated system for viewing attachments, or executing executables, and this is seen as better security. I am already annoyed enough when I click somthing and windows asks me if I want to open it, or if I am sure that I want to perform a certain action. If I clicked it then I want it open, end of story. I don't want to go through alot of crap to get it to work.

No, hes merely saying that the security holes that exist in Windows due to integration of IE and Outlook directly into the OS dont exist in Linux because they are recognized as security holes. By default mail programs view HTML attachments in linux as code, but they can be configured to open them up in a broswer without having to go through a long and complicated string of menus, while preserving the security of the system.

Basically, this article seems to be saying that Linux is a good operating system for stupid people because it's too complex for them to do anything really damaging, which is probably a good thing but does nothing to address any security concerns that I might have.

Actually the article is saying that if the current market were reversed, and Linux was the dominant desktop system, viruses wouldnt be as common because of the nature of linux itself.

On a side note, he does address the degree with which applications in windows tend to mingle their code with the OS, and I agree that this is one of the largest problems with Windows and I would be much happier if MS would address that issue.

Yes he does and I agree entirely.

In closing, this sentence sums up the article nicely.

When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, Linux may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant.

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

Linux security guru now works for M$:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=820