Re: Why are there few viruses for UNIX/Linux systems?

From: Peter Makholm (peter_at_makholm.net)
Date: 08/16/03 

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:13:52 +0200

"-thavna" <sniff@nospan.mypdr.com> writes:

> I have always taken for granted that there are few viruses that affect
> UNIX/Linux systems (compared to other operating systems). I want to
> understand why... Can someone please shed some light on this matter.

Traditionally viruses has attacked executables and been distributed
by sharing of executables. Many of the executables on a unix system
has been owned by root and hasn't been writable by the ordinary user
and many things has been distributed by source which is more immune
against viruses (Yeah, I've read Thompson's Trusting Trust-paper. I
said 'more' not 'completly').

I don't think this explains the present day situation.

Modern unix applications (in Gnome and KDE) does less behind the backs
of the user than the same Windows applications.

The choice of application in unix is more fragmentet than under
Windows (i.e. allmost everybody uses Outlook on Windows but there a
tens of incompatible mail applications in Unix)

Linux/Unix got less market share counted per user. This makes it less
interesting to write viruses for.

The avarage Linux/Unix user are smarter than the avarage Windows user
and there are less directly dumb Linux/Unix users.

All this could change. I don't believe that A unix operating system is
more secure by design against the viruses we're witnessing today. 

-- 
 Peter Makholm     |                                 Wisdom has two parts:
 peter@makholm.net |                           1) having a lot to say, and
 http://hacking.dk |                                      2) not saying it

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux (in)security (Was: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: No Subject)
    ... Why haven't Unix viruses become epidemic ... The usual argument is that Windows is more ubiquitous than Unix and is ... music and print on *nix as easily as they can do it on Windows, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly
    ... I've used UNIX, ... I've used/use Linux, ... > inefficient operating system - if most other Windows ... This is why I don't run POS operating systems. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Changing a Binary Value in the Registry? (Topic Tilt to NTP)
    ... > I don't know anything about toy operating systems. ... pockets for Unix to be considered a cheap solution. ... ;-) I employ various versions of Windows ... As for Linux, well, I haven't bothered to get around to using that one ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Changing a Binary Value in the Registry? (Topic Tilt to NTP)
    ... >> I don't know anything about toy operating systems. ... > pockets for Unix to be considered a cheap solution. ... ;-) I employ various versions of Windows ... > As for Linux, well, I haven't bothered to get around to using that one ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: A depressing anniversary
    ... :: IBM mainframe operating systems (with the possible exception of Unix) ... Early versions of Windows had that problem, sure, but NT and later ... Looking for a z/OS systems programmer position ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)