Security of Linux vs. Windoze

Hi all,
Hypothetical question: If tomorrow all end users were to replace
Windoze with a version of Linux, would virus activity go down substantially
or just shift to Linux viruses ? I'm wondering what the future foretells.
TIA.
Steve
--
Linux Registered User # 335956

Steve H.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:23:43 GMT, Steve H. wrote:
> Hi all,
> Hypothetical question: If tomorrow all end users were to replace
> Windoze with a version of Linux, would virus activity go down substantially

Yes, all current virus would die, no OS to run/spread on/from.

> or just shift to Linux viruses ?

Since viruses cannot spread via mail messages, there would be a whole
lot less. As each new virus exploit is created, they would be closed
up about as fast.

Bit Twister

In article <>, says...
> Hi all,
> Hypothetical question: If tomorrow all end users were to replace
> Windoze with a version of Linux, would virus activity go down substantially
> or just shift to Linux viruses ? I'm wondering what the future foretells.
> TIA.

Since there are many virus problems with Linux it would just shift to
that platform. Linux is no more secure than any other OS, it's just not
attacked anywhere near as much because it's install base so soooo very
much smaller.

BTW: You just started the proverbial Windows VS Linux war

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos

Steve H. wisely said the following on 20/11/2003 03:23:

> Hi all,
> Hypothetical question: If tomorrow all end users were to replace
> Windoze with a version of Linux, would virus activity go down substantially
> or just shift to Linux viruses ? I'm wondering what the future foretells.
> TIA.
> Steve

*Yawn*

--
Get your Geek Goodies!
http://shop.security-forums.com

.: http://www.security-forums.com :.

Share your knowledge
It's a way to achieve
Immortality.

Lord Shaolin

Leythos wrote:

> Since there are many virus problems with Linux

Wrong. Many = 30,000+ = Windows
Hardly Any = +-200 (counting shell scripts) = Linux

it would just shift to
> that platform. Linux is no more secure than any other OS,

Come here so I can slap you...

it's just not
> attacked anywhere near as much because it's install base so soooo very
> much smaller.

Yes, there are alot of idiots. Anyone that needs to point -n- click
thru everything to survive has no chance in Linux. You actually have to
*gasp* think!


> BTW: You just started the proverbial Windows VS Linux war

It's not even a war... I figured this much out. Those that go on the
Internet for 20 minutes a week to check their email then disconnect,
sing the praises of a highly-overpriced insecure snowjob-ripoff of an
excuse for an OS and I can see why: It's brainless. It decides what
you'll run, what processes run- hell most Windows users have no clue
what's even on their systems- go look in alt.privacy.spyware sometime.
But those of us that actual know about computers laugh uncontrollably
when someone even tries to equate Windows to Linux. I know- I used
Windows for years; got fed up, switched to Linux and had to re-learn
every. Comparing the two is like- well, you just can't. Period.




--

=-=-Mod_SSL/GPG/OpenSSL=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Atr2-WBS=-=-=-=-
jayjwa(){
Spam ;
MS "Micro$oft has preformed an illegal operation and
will be shutdown. Install Linux or BSD to close.";
domain atr2.ath.cx; contact finger me@domain;
}
=-=-=Linux Tough.Powered By Slackware=-=HTTPS/FTP=-RLF#37=

@micro$oft.com

In article <>, "@micro$oft.com"
<""billyboi\"@micro$oft.com"> says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > Since there are many virus problems with Linux
>
> Wrong. Many = 30,000+ = Windows
> Hardly Any = +-200 (counting shell scripts) = Linux

Which equates to about the same level of Windows to Linux systems out
there. I could say the same for to Commodore computers - there are still
many out there and not one has a virus or been compromised that can be
found / reported on the internet.

> it would just shift to
> > that platform. Linux is no more secure than any other OS,
>
> Come here so I can slap you...

I use both platforms here and can assure you that a typical home user
playing with RedHat 9 is just as exposed - if the user selects the
default install of everything they are going to get hacked, not a
question of if, but when.

Last time I did a full install it took over an hour, same as XP, and
still had to update most of the apps.

--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:40:21 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:

<snipped>

>Which equates to about the same level of Windows to Linux systems out
>there. I could say the same for to Commodore computers - there are still
>many out there and not one has a virus or been compromised that can be
>found / reported on the internet.

Are you certain? Are you really, really certain about that?

http://www.tml.hut.fi/Opinnot/Tik-11...7/viruses.html

2.5.3 Other platforms

Viruses can be found from in almost any kind of computer, such as HP
calculators used by students like HP 48-calculators and old computers
like Commodore 64 and Unix computers too. [1]

In general, there are virtually no non-experimental UNIX viruses.
There have been a few Worm incidents, most notably the Morris Worm,.
the Internet Worm, of 1988.

http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslistbooks.html?id=16

1987

Non-IBM computers are also not forgotten: several viruses for Apple
Macintosh, Commodore Amiga and Atari ST have been detected.

Don't want a virus? Don't share floppy disks, don't connect to the
internet, as a matter of fact, just don't turn it on. ;-P

>> it would just shift to
>> > that platform. Linux is no more secure than any other OS,
>>
>> Come here so I can slap you...
>
>I use both platforms here and can assure you that a typical home user
>playing with RedHat 9 is just as exposed - if the user selects the
>default install of everything they are going to get hacked, not a
>question of if, but when.

Absolutely.

>Last time I did a full install it took over an hour, same as XP, and
>still had to update most of the apps.
>
>--

Dazz

Dazz

On 2003-11-20, @micro$oft.com <> said:
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> Since there are many virus problems with Linux

Posted with no facts to back it up. The Microsoft facts hit my
mail server everyday.

> Wrong. Many = 30,000+ = Windows
> Hardly Any = +-200 (counting shell scripts) = Linux

Ah, sounds about right.

>> it would just shift to
>> that platform. Linux is no more secure than any other OS,
>
> Come here so I can slap you...

I don't think that's going to help much. Leythos obviously favours
Windows systems over Linux, which he also 'uses' to try and not appear
as though he's biased. Which of course he is.

Favouring Windows systems, he has not found the time to explore Linux
and therefore base any of his 'advice' on any decent amount of
experience. Just using Red Hat, in the default install, is not
understanding Linux. Funny, using Red Hat, the most 'microsoft' of all
Linux distros.

We've heard in the past that his systems (the majority of which no
doubt run Microsoft O/S's) have never been compromised (as far as he
knows) since 1974 was it ? This may or may not be true. Is he really
going to admit it here anyway ?


>> it's just not
>> attacked anywhere near as much because it's install base so soooo very
>> much smaller.

The reason the Linux userbase maybe smaller compared to the
collective, is that your typical windows user does not want to think,
or get that 'involved' in what they're doing. This is not wrong. A
person is fully entitled to do what the hell they like with their
computer, and try whatever software they take an interest in. Linux is
not for everyone, the same can be said about Windows.

Human nature dictates that we will always choose the easiest path when
faced with understanding a complex subject, such as computers. That is, until we
discard the established 'norm' (windows) and realise what we were
missing (Linux or UNIX derivatives)

We then find that this new 'thing' wasn't so hard, and never look
back.


> Yes, there are alot of idiots. Anyone that needs to point -n- click
> thru everything to survive has no chance in Linux. You actually have to
> *gasp* think!

This is true. Thanks to Microsoft, many users think that this is the
only way a computer can be coaxed into doing anything. Presented with
a command line, many Windows users will just give up. Those who return
and put in even a small amount of effort, will be rewarded with a
powerful and infinitely configurable computing experience.

If you still prefer a GUI to do everything, then Linux has that for
you too. No, it's not exactly the same as Windows, but that doesn't
mean it's not any good, just that you've become so accustomed to
Microsofts way of thinking, that you just can't get your head around
why it should be different.

>> BTW: You just started the proverbial Windows VS Linux war
>
> It's not even a war... I figured this much out. Those that go on the
> Internet for 20 minutes a week to check their email then disconnect,
> sing the praises of a highly-overpriced insecure snowjob-ripoff of an
> excuse for an OS and I can see why: It's brainless. It decides what
> you'll run, what processes run- hell most Windows users have no clue
> what's even on their systems- go look in alt.privacy.spyware sometime.
> But those of us that actual know about computers laugh uncontrollably
> when someone even tries to equate Windows to Linux. I know- I used
> Windows for years; got fed up, switched to Linux and had to re-learn
> every. Comparing the two is like- well, you just can't. Period.

Yes, using Windows requires no effort, and consequently no thought.
Linux doesn't need to hold the hand of Windows users. If you want to
learn about it, you will. It'll be a personal choice. All the
information you'll ever need is right there either on the Internet, or
in the volumes of publications printed on the subject. You just have
to want to do it. And you can, believe me.

Leythos, if Linux (read UNIX derivatives) is no more secure than
Windows, why do the majority of public access servers on the Internet
choose to run it instead of Windows 'attempted' equivalents ? Leave
out the price factor please, most people know that Microsoft is always
going to be the most expensive option.

Oh, and quit bashing 'typical home users', unless you're referring to
Windows users. Your typical home Linux user will know more about what
they're doing than your typical Windows user. And no, I'm not talking
about the person who's just got RedHat and installed it completely
default.

Regards,

Pete.

Transmute

"Steve H." <> wrote in message news:<>...
> Hi all,
> Hypothetical question: If tomorrow all end users were to replace
> Windoze with a version of Linux, would virus activity go down substantially
> or just shift to Linux viruses ? I'm wondering what the future foretells.
> TIA.
> Steve

Hypothetically speaking, all efforts to attack the mainstream
operating system whould likely shift from Microsoft to Linux.
However, many of the mechanisms that allow viruses to propagate to and
through a Windows system are either not present or not enabled in the
default Linux configuration. As well, many viruses that make changes
to the system require root access to do so, and all but one
distribution (that I'm aware of) point out the hazards of root access
and make (for several values of make) the installer create a normal
user account.

n1pop@hotmail.com

In article <HtidnST6D-FwmCCiRVn->, in
says...
> I don't think that's going to help much. Leythos obviously favours
> Windows systems over Linux, which he also 'uses' to try and not appear
> as though he's biased. Which of course he is.

I'm not biased - I have no preference for either OS. I don't care what
OS I use as long as I can get my work done.

Linux is great! Windows is Great! I actually like both of them, but each
has it's place.

Each, in the wrong hands is badly exposed and easy to compromise.


--
--

(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Leythos