Advanced

Mac and Linux viruses?

Posted by otis_2 on · 2 comments
None; By R. Fennimore
Mail this story
Print this story

I'm getting a little tired of reading all of these articles by supposed "experts" suggesting that Mac and Linux systems are becoming as vulnerable to malicious code (viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, etc.) as Windows because they are gaining in popularity. That the only reason Windows is targeted so much is due to their market share of desktop operating systems. What a pile of rubbish!

[I would suggest that the user of a GNU/Linux system who has lost his/her data due to a run-in with some malicious code is, in fact, vulnerable to that malicious code. Additionally, the fact that it is much more difficult to contract malware using a GNU/Mac/UNIX system does not mean it is impossible. Even so, I can agree that some of the hype is exactly that - mere hype. - dcparris]

Lets put this into language that everyone can understand. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, so let's use some analogies to illustrate the point.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that all viruses are "sexually transmitted". Next, let us also assume that restricting file and system access permissions in the operating system is like wearing a condom, and communicating on the Internet is like having sex (pretty good analogies if I don't say so myself).

Windows systems are set up by default to allow users full access to the entire system, which is to say that the operating system is NOT wearing a condom. This is the equivalent of having unprotected sex at all times while on the Internet. As a result, when viruses and other malicious code gets into the computer, the malicious code also has unrestricted access to the entire system.

Windows users are therefore encouraged to get "vaccinated" by using anti-virus software to protect them against all the "known" viruses (I say "known" because, like real vaccines, most anti-virus software is only effective against “known” viruses). So, Windows PC's are having unprotected sex ALL the time, even though there is no protection against new viruses (until a new vaccine comes out anyway). In addition, there is also malicious code (ie: rootkits) that can be completely undetectable.

Mac, Linux and other Unix based systems come with condoms pre-installed. Which is to say that they have restrictive file and access permissions set up by default, so if any malicious code does manage to find it's way in, it will have the same restrictive file and access permissions as the user. Because the operating system is wearing the condom, the worst case scenario is that the user's own files might get “hosed”. The malicious code does NOT have access to vital system files like it does in Windows (ie: the system registry).

Is it possible for Windows to wear a condom or for Mac/Linux/Unix to operate without one? Well, yes it is, but most systems do not switch from the default setup because the vendor(s) of most operating system(s) make it difficult for the average user to do so.

So, Mac/Linux/Unix systems have condoms on ALL the time and Windows systems NEVER wear them, even though there are tens of thousands of viruses in the wild, and over 99% of them ONLY target Windows systems. Less than 1% target Mac/Linux/Unix systems.

There are never any guarantees in the world of Internet security. Security is NOT a product, it's a PROCESS. It just so happens that Microsoft got the process wrong. Security in Windows was an afterthought, so they are "reactive". Security in Mac/Linux/Unix based systems was built-in from the get-go, so they they are "proactive". Huge difference!

Windows is not necessarily a “bad” operating system (at least I don't think so), but they certainly could have outfitted Windows with condoms on by default instead of leaving it to end users to put them on. I think that was a very bad decision. I hear Vista is supposed to be more “Unix-like”. We'll have to wait and see.

Let the “experts” put that in their pipe and smoke it!

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial; Groups: Linux

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

Comments (2)

Untitled

To release one operating system with poor security could be assigned to oversight. To release OS after OS with the same hopeless security begins to look like either gross incompetence or design.

It's called having a vested interest. There is now a vested interest on both sides to not sort Windows out as this would in turn lead to loss of revenue from technical support and a loss of revenue from products designed and sold to "fix windows". (Anyone who tells you MS can't sort this is lying. No one on earth has the wealth available to Microsoft, if they're not prepared to use it to sort out their own products but would rather spend it bending the law, crushing the opposition and spreading lies then they deserve all that's coming to them).

The other side of this is the constant wittering from MS sympathisers how the only reason Linux isn't likewise afflicted is is down to Linux being used by about 10 people worlwide so "who will bother attacking it?". Implication being that it would be easy to attack were the numbers to provide sufficient motivation. Well I've looked at the list of companies that run Linux and there are some large companies there and the news is eerily silent of news about large companies being infected by virii targeted at Linux.

Don't believe the hype!

When cows grow wings and learn how to fly

otis_2 Story submitter ·




Mr Parris,

With all due respect Sir, I said "worst case scenario".

I rescue Windows desktop PC's from malware on almost a daily basis. Many of these machines need a format and reinstall, as the operating systems (Windows) become so corrupted (not user data), that they are beyond the ability to boot (even in 'safe mode').

See: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1945782,00.asp

Recovering user personal data is normally not a problem, ie: boot from Linux 'LiveCD', mount NTFS partition, recover data.

In the early days of malware it was mostly malicious. By that I mean, the code seemed to be written by delinquents who got a thrill out of trashing people's PC's (deleting data files, etc). Today that is generally not the case. Today's malware writers are doing it for financial gain, ie: stealing personal information, hijacking PC's and turning them into SPAM bots or using them for DDOS attacks.

I will agree with you that virtually anything is "possible", but does that mean it's probable? I suppose one could say it's "possible" that one day cows will grow wings and learn to fly, but is this probable? Is it really worth getting concerned about? This discussion is like debating the relative safety of traveling by airliner vs. by automobile. There is simply no comparison, however tell that to people who are scared to fly because of endless media reports about plane crashes.

As I write this, there are literally tens of thousands of hijacked PC's all over the world the criminals have turned into "bot nets". They rent them out on the black market for illegal activities. Every last one of these PC's are Windows based.

Is it "possible" that one or more might be Mac/Linux/Unix based some day? Sure, it is .... when cows grow wings and learn how to fly.

- R. Fennimore

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post