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

From: Michael Erskine (osiris_at_deltaville.net)
Date: 08/23/03 

Date: 22 Aug 2003 16:53:13 -0700

unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote in message news:<bhlu3g$n7d$1@string.physics.ubc.ca>...

> What Bill wrote...

Bill;

I've trimmed your post, not to hide what your wrote but to reduce the
length of this one.

While I respect your expertise (a lot), I feel you are inexact about a
couple of points.

These days most daemons are chrooted, or do not run as root, thus the
exploits which might have been available to them previously no longer
are available to them.

While I understand that chrooting a daemon is not something one would
expect of a Winderz user, it is something one *SHOULD* expect from
Slakware, SuSE, Red Hat, or Mandrake because these people are experts
and do know how to build a system.

Microsoft fails to "get it" in that while it has repeatedly been
pointed out to them that they are an "Internet disaster waiting to
happen", they have consistently failed to take precautions which
people (such as yourself) who write excellent software and give it
away have taken. In Microsoft's case, it is a matter of getting that
damnable market share. In cases where free software, both GNU and the
*BSD guys, are involved it is about securing the network proper.
Microsoft is less secure BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO BE. Bill that is a
fact, perhaps not proven, but pretty well demonstrated at this point.
Would you not agree?

As to relative security issues between Linux and *BSD, well in
particular the BSD follows the secure by default premise. If you are
going to run *BSD, and you intend to run a service, you better be able
to figure out how... That is what makes *BSD systems more secure by
default. I like them but I don't use them because I can secure a
Linux box, so why bother. Matter of fact, I can secure anything, even
a Microsoft product, but WHY bother? For me that works.

Is any *nix like system more secure than any Microsoft system, sure it
is if you are talking default installs.

All systems have their share of exploits. Securing any system
requires expertise and expertise is in short supply.

I've heard it said, "If Linux had the market share that Microsoft has
there would be as many exploits for it as there are for Windows." I
take issue with that comment *BECAUSE* the Linux community is vastly
superior to the Microsoft community about getting their distributions
cleaned up. Many distro's have default workstation installs which are
secure at install time and if you subscribe to the automated updates,
will remain secure.

That is also true, almost, anyway... about Microsoft.

Bill, you have been around the community for a long time. You and I
both know that *MOST* OS problems were solved before MSDOS was a
twinkle in Billy's eye and you and I both know that Billy could have
done a whole h311 of a lot more to help prevent the problems we see
today, but he isn't concerned with security, he is concerned with
market share and THAT is what has driven Microsoft... It still does
or they would make the simple changes that *EVERYONE* else is making
up front.

No, Microsoft systems are NO WHERE NEAR as secure by default as Linux,
Apple, or BSD based systems... not even close.
-m-

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Religion... was RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: January 15 is Personal Firewall Day, help the cause
    ... there is no A/V software for Linux that protects ... Of course, many of them do run A/V software, but it's to protect Windows ... In today's environment, software *must* be secure first, with usability added ... Microsoft systems take the opposite approach, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Security and the User experience
    ... just one secure token. ... Microsoft, Apple, *nix can say all they like, but the consumer will simply ... implement any security and/or just have no clue about security on their PC. ... The OS will then query the authority whenever ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
    ... - if a program that starts secure does not change then chances are that it remains secure ... Windows security has been breached, therefore there's no reason to believe that the problem can get worse on Linux, giving time and inclination. ... Personally, I think that position is unfair and does not take into consideration the simple fact that Microsoft made the industry, ... having a spec and publishing a spec are different notions. ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: IIS issues? OWA?
    ... In steps one after you uncheck Require secure channel and Require ... Right click Exchange under Default Web Site and select Properties. ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows
    ... are 3D GUI objects a Microsoft invention? ... copies to circumvent payment is a nice thing to do, but I think "secure" ... :> "trusted" applications like media player, real player, and its ilk or not ... I don't think small compiler companies will always use dongles. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)