What is Digg?93 Comments
- TinMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What you insipid people fail to relise is that creating a virus for linux is EASY.....But most people whom run it don't run as root so the virii cannot access files used to replicate. There are MANY exploits for linux, but linux users are usually have a clue about running with admin priv.
- zagi1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3considering 70% of servers run on Linux its amazing that there are fewer viruses, still beats Windows :)
- Maverick83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Truthfully if Linux had a 90% market share on home user computers (read 90% of the 90% of users are idiots) it would be full of virus'. Same for the Mac OS. It would also be loaded with Spyware. Of course the people that Spyware and virus' know that even if they did write something for Linux the users are much smarter and less likily to fall for it."
Oh, so, that's why we always hear about a new virus for apache, or a new exploit for apache, because it's the most used webserver sofware in the world.
We hear about that all the time, right?
Moron. - gfreak49, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 I agree with DewayneSmith, but i have to say that I heard somewhere that the reason virus makers don't make them for linux is that they would rather target a larger population, and since Windows is used by more less knowledgeable people, they ignore Linux and Macs. Also, if your careful, Windows can be just as secure.
- caluml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Windows.htm only shows 24 viruses. I don't think this is very accurate/complete.
- DewayneSmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't fight over which is better, look at the negatives and build from there.
Windows has security problems, Linux isn't user friendly and the Mac GUI is resource hungry like an angry mother after child support.
Every operating system has certain flaws for certain users, the flaws I don't like about Windows is not only the massive amount of viruses, worms, trojans, malware and exploits there are for it. But it's a super bloated operating system. 256mb RAM to at least boot up Windows, must less do anything at all if you have integrated graphics and integrated sound.
The flaws for me in Macs are the GUI is a super hungry, RAM gobbling, beefed up on Graphic-Steriods, Linux desktop. Mac is running Linux, it should look like Linux, not a German-Engineered car. Another flaw I don't like is the ***** FANBOYS WHO NEVER SHUT THE ***** UP, enough said.
Linux? Where to begin, no games is a huge turn off, insuffecient driver support, no major retailer, still raw coding in this GUI age, etc., the list goes on. What do I like? The Apache security, the software is free to edit, download, share, duplicate and install as many times as you want to. Hell, you're even legally entitled to with Ubuntu.
//my rantings for the night
//Questions? Comments? Hit me up at http://dewayne.wordpress.com
//I will create a new post titled, "Digg rants", simply reply to it.
// - Dewayne - windwaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Root is responsible for stopping viruses (virii isn't correct; it isn't a latin word). And, Linux has been becoming a key desktop platform lately.
- Maverick83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In Linux's whole run since 1993, it's had 7 virii.
Remarkable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're asking the wrong question; the right question to ask is how many rootkits exist for linux.
The reason you're asking the wrong question is about market share. Nobody wants to write a virus or worm for a target with less than 10% market share.
Duh... - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The assumption that hackers don't want to make viruses for the mac or linux just because it has less market share is totally bogus.
A: If the hacker is looking to gain more notoriety and attention from their virus than although macs are less used their virus would go down in history and into the headlines for being for instance the first EVER virus for os x.
B: If they just want to cause more damage mac users generally open and run random attachments with no fear of it being a virus so and no virus scanning/ removing software so such a virus would spread like wild fire.
hackers don't attack linux and macs because they can't not because they don't want to.
linux and macs would be just as devoid of viruses no matter the market share. - RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""If run from a root account" nuff said"
Many people are stupid enough to do so - just as that is easy to fix by not remaining ignorant on what you are working with, so is Windows. As long as you've got some sort of basic PC skills, you can prevent yourself from getting a virus.... You can't pass something off as being irrelevant just because it takes a moron to do it. - UrbenLegend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, either Linux is secure because of two things:
1.) Its just secure in general being based on UNIX and all.
2.) Hackers don't want to endanger their own computers.
I am not really serious about the second one.
"What you insipid people fail to relise is that creating a virus for linux is EASY.....But most people whom run it don't run as root so the virii cannot access files used to replicate. There are MANY exploits for linux, but linux users are usually have a clue about running with admin priv."
Uhmm, yeah if only Windows could fully function with a limited account. You have to be administrator in order to do anything under Windows. Under Linux, you don't need to be adminstrator in order to do stuff. So in general, Windows security is flawed. - NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One of the key things that makes Linux more secure is that its users (In general) have a decent amount of computer know-how, which includes not running as root or admin by default.
The linux worms/viruses dont seem to have any effect if used on a user account and not as root. - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/ is from 2003-OCT - and it says about 40 for Linux good reading none-the-less.
- antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Apache, is the most popular webserver software out there, and you hear almost nothing."
You're talking about apples and oranges - Apache Web server, vs Desktop Operating system - two VERY different approach vectors.
And I think the word VIRUS needs to be changed to MALICIOUS CODE.
"If Linux and Mac had 70-80% of the market share, it would have more viruses, but not nearly the amount that Windows has."
-Agreed, however, look at how long they've been around as well. Windows is based on more or less the same code base, OS - X isn't its NEW, so is LINUX - so WHEN and IF they are as equal in numbers, they will also have to have been around as long, *AND* it would also have to be easy for the virus writers (as in SCRIPT KIDDIES) to launch.
NO ONE can't beyond a shadow of a doubt tell me that a program can't be written (whatever the os - within reason) that won't do harm to a machine if you get enough people to fall for executing it. - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1-maverick83 you're a ***** dumbass - just because the number one Web server on the net isn't attacked as often as Windows machines (which by the way, FAR FAR FAR outnumber the number of Apache Web servers (be it Windows running Apache, or AS-*****-400, or whatever) doesn't mean *****.
How many of the W32 virii out there are for Notepad? Same analogy - wordpad.exe - sure, there are a small few - but that doesn't mean it IS or ISN'T being targeted because it's "super secure".
Targets are selected for a few reasons, and ONE of them is for ROI (return on investment) - e.g. what can I get by writing this Virus? Can I get .2% of the users credit card numbers (e.g. MACS), or can I get a crack at over 90% of what's out there? Either way if my success rate is .001%, I'll get more credit card numbers from WINDOWS than I would from LINUX, not because LINUX is more secure, just I get more ROI from penetration. SO I would write my code for Windows.
Just like what OS has the most programs for it? you guessed it, the most popular one, Windows. Why? Why would I write code for something I'm selling (again ROI) when I know I can make more profit (or credit card numbers in our example here) of the more popular one.
And yes, ANOTHER reason is that Windows (used to be) is more insecure out of the box - reason? Billy Gates wanted it TO WORK. Hell, Apple used to be ***** for security too... ***** changes, and yeah, MS has a bad rap - but numbers do make a difference, like it or not. - Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The reason Linux isn't on the list is because its uptime wraps back to 0 after roughly 497 days...not that you'd bother to look it up."
I think some bitch ass N00B got served for being computer illiterate.
everyone knows linux is teh 5h1+zor
++DIGG FTW (I always wondered how many linux viruses there were) - BangoSkank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See... no one is writing for Linux.
- NickelSax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We can not know for sure how many viruses, worms... there are for any OS. All we can know are the number that have ben released and detected, or have been written and the author has informed people about w/o releasing it. There could be a programmers out there right now who for what ever reason have written hundreds or thousands of viruses, worms... for Linux, BSD, OSX... but do not feel the need to release them on the public, or tell anyone what they have programmed.
- alterself, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ahhhh..get my firesuit!..flamewar!!!
same *****...different article. i have not had a virus on my linux (ever) OR windows systems for years @ home. - bem1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There will be more after this story.....
- ooooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry i was wrong its 19 according to your site
(Really there's much more) - ooooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That site says there is 20 viruses for linux
- p2pster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool! 'nix systems are so damn secure... but not perfect - even OS X ;) - one day!
- Phaedrus73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Truthfully if Linux had a 90% market share on home user computers (read 90% of the 90% of users are idiots) it would be full of virus'. Same for the Mac OS. It would also be loaded with Spyware. Of course the people that Spyware and virus' know that even if they did write something for Linux the users are much smarter and less likily to fall for it.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If run from a root account" nuff said
- securemind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and how many are listed for the Mac??
- antiwmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think talking about linux viris are just stupid.
linux IS NOT windows.
so, it will change how viriis infected. and how it spread.
linux does not hide anything and it has unix-like permissions and most distro's umask is set at good num.
AND, once linux got hit by virii, its extreme easy to recover. You dont need to reinstall whole OS etc etc... - znxster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lacks somewhat on the information..
This is more like it....
http://vx.netlux.org/vl.php?dir=stat
Linux .. Count = 130 .. % = 0.46 - karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Uhmm, yeah if only Windows could fully function with a limited account. You have to be administrator in order to do anything under Windows. Under Linux, you don't need to be adminstrator in order to do stuff. So in general, Windows security is flawed."
I can do almost anything I can using a limited user account in windows. And when I need administrator privileges I use the runas command. I also run linux, but I only download and install software from trusted sources, and I don't log in as root. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 "The biggest target, however, has been php apps.
My theorem, as linux becomes easier to install, the average IQ of a person running linux will drop. Therefore, more linux systems will be exploited." -Zguru
So I guess I should be learning BSD then? - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0(General Virus Speaking Non-linux) Who cares how many there are, its if we can be protected and they can't do damage to the system is what is important.
- nslain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"People always think linux is the most stable os out there but it's obviously not true, look at the link to netcraft highest uptime overall, linux isn't even ON the first page, where there are windows 2000 & 2003 servers but mostly dominated by FreeBSD and other BSD variants. BSD has always been a better platform, just Linux geeks like to stuck RMS's ***** and worship the ***** license ever, GPL"
The reason Linux isn't on the list is because its uptime wraps back to 0 after roughly 497 days...not that you'd bother to look it up.
I especially like it when people says BSD is better than Linux, because we all know that security/stability has absolutely nothing to do with the admin, right? - nihilism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh and
@ trogdoor - Dude word, that is the truth right there, I'm not being sarcastic, seriously, thats the way arguments are conducted, welcome to the group of people that have something to contribute - nihilism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok, first off, who gives a *****, personally I will agree that it is very possible to make a windows box secure, but you know what, I just don't care, no os has a problem, you have a problem, you go to another os and if it doesn't behave how you want it to you think it's bad. Well guess what smart ass, I enjoy my linux box, I was hanging out w/ my cousin a few weeks ago, he uses a ghetto ass 3 gig 64 mb mac, he got osx to run off of it great, boot up takes like 30 seconds, he keeps all sorts of ***** on there by turning down the quality of his music, no problems, so no, mac isn't resource hungry, Dewayne smith, you should actually use a mac before you criticize it. My personal preference is linux, I like to customize the ***** out of my computer, I'm learning python soon, so I think lots of open source code to look at would be nice too, bsd's are awesome too, I have never tried one, but I will try, I heard it was pretty nice. The point is that you shoulden't go criticizing everyone for what they use, and at the same time you shoulden't think your the god of all knowlege just because you can change your autoexec.bat or have recompiled your kernel, (which I have never done -- I have things to do -- people to see lol) so everyone chill the ***** out, if there is anything we can all hate, it is AOL, there douchebags anyway, and sometimes the mac and linux ppl need to vent about what MS does, oh and don't say we can't, for god's sake they copywrited the ipod interface and ripped off our multi user thing... and a ton of other ***** as well, but I digress, that's all I gotta say, I'm gonna go have a soda.
- nihilism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0(drinking soda) @jasqwerty Dude, just to point out what I just said 8 seconds ago, who gives a crap weather or not grandma gets a virus, those morons at geeksquad might be able to run their heads into the wall for an hour and figure it out, In the meantime, worry about yourself, google security faults in you os, thats what I did, Interesting, and I decided I liked where I stood as far as my OS goes, and thats about it, Just be glad that you are intelegent enough to secure YOURSELF.
@maverick THat comment about him saying apache boxes and insulting his intelegence to the point where he knew what apache was but just said It wrong was rather petty, you are pathetic, stop criticizing peoples failure to describe things correctly and actually become a solution to the major problem, not just a member of the peanut gallery, but an intellectual human being who has something to contribute on the grand scale of things
oh *****, soda is out. - Zguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a note to all idiots...
The latest Linux worm was not a Linux Worm. If you are running any server and watching your logs, you would have noticed an increase in attempts for many known exploits. This worms is even trying to hit NT4 systems.
The biggest target, however, has been php apps.
My theorem, as linux becomes easier to install, the average IQ of a person running linux will drop. Therefore, more linux systems will be exploited. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@trogdor: I'm with you.
@AminoSC: "They can't infect OS X or Linux boxes since it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack."
Mac users tend to know other Mac users… and we're not as rare as you think we are. Besides, there are tons of labs, studios, etc. with Macs waiting to be infected. If a virus writer was successful, he/she would be SUCCESSFUL.
@Virus writers: bring it. Show us something that digs deep into our computers, that stops us from removing it, that sends itself to others and installs without warning and without authorization. Show us hell.
I wait. - Maverick83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1People could still be hammering away on apache trying to find an exploit. Popularity is nothing.
- antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@PathDaemon
Check out (MAC) MP3Virus.Gen (yeah from last year)... so yeah, ***** it out there, so should you let your guard down? Or not run AV software? Only if you're a dumbass - something will come next, believe it or not. - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0QUOTE:The assumption that hackers don't want to make viruses for the mac or linux just because it has less market share is totally bogus.
A: If the hacker is looking to gain more notoriety and attention from their virus than although macs are less used their virus would go down in history and into the headlines for being for instance the first EVER virus for os x.
B: If they just want to cause more damage mac users generally open and run random attachments with no fear of it being a virus so and no virus scanning/ removing software so such a virus would spread like wild fire.
hackers don't attack linux and macs because they can't not because they don't want to.
linux and macs would be just as devoid of viruses no matter the market share.UNQUOTE==========================================
---Complete *****. My friend running his iMAC G5, ran a "crack" for Doom III - guess what? got his MAC infected. Dumbass for entering his pw when it asked to install the crack? Yeah, same ***** on Mac as on Windows, dumbass people. If you want it "to just work" you're going to have penetration vectors, mostly the HUMAN-DUMB-ASS ones.
Anyone living in a world of "there isn't anything going to hurt my precious xxx (insert your OS or whatever here)" will find out one day, that just ain't so. - AminoSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oh, so, that's why we always hear about a new virus for apache, or a new exploit for apache, because it's the most used webserver sofware in the world.
We hear about that all the time, right?"
Why would they want to break their own access to the net? They are after the XP users not Apache boxes. Duh. - AminoSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The assumption that hackers don't want to make viruses for the mac or linux just because it has less market share is totally bogus.
A: If the hacker is looking to gain more notoriety and attention from their virus than although macs are less used their virus would go down in history and into the headlines for being for instance the first EVER virus for os x.
B: If they just want to cause more damage mac users generally open and run random attachments with no fear of it being a virus so and no virus scanning/ removing software so such a virus would spread like wild fire.
hackers don't attack linux and macs because they can't not because they don't want to.
linux and macs would be just as devoid of viruses no matter the market share."
A. They can't infect OS X or Linux boxes since it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
B. See A. - G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That list is terrible, for one if you look at there Window's list, all they have is this:
Trojan.Win32.Defacer.a
Trojan.Win32.Filecoder.a
Trojan.Win32.GhostSpy
Trojan.Win32.Glieder.gen
Trojan.Win32.GoHotlist
Trojan.Win32.KillAV.bk
Trojan.Win32.KillAV.bl
Trojan.Win32.KillDisk.f
Trojan.Win32.SecondThought.c
Trojan.Win32.Xombe.a - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LMAO!
How many mac viruses are there for OS X since it IS BSD based. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@antitrace: "My friend running his iMAC G5, ran a "crack" for Doom III - guess what? got his MAC infected. Dumbass for entering his pw when it asked to install the crack? Yeah, same ***** on Mac as on Windows, dumbass people."
What did it do? Where did he get it? I have heard of an "Office 2004 Trial" distrib'td on Gnutella which erased your home directory. But it was obviously not what it appeared (way too small) and couldn't "infect" your comp or pass itself on. I bet your friend's "virus" was the same. - PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@antitrace: "My friend running his iMAC G5, ran a "crack" for Doom III - guess what? got his MAC infected. Dumbass for entering his pw when it asked to install the crack? Yeah, same ***** on Mac as on Windows, dumbass people."
What did it do? Where did he get it? I have heard of an "Office 2004 Trial" distrib'td on Gnutella which erased your home directory. But it was obviously not what it appeared (way too small) and couldn't "infect" your comp or pass itself on. I bet your friend's "virus" was the same.
"Check out (MAC) MP3Virus.Gen (yeah from last year)... so yeah, ***** it out there"
I remember that. It was proof-of-concept and didn't do anything. The vulnerability has been fixed by Apple since.
"http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/855118
Why isn't this being exploited on MAC OS X?"
It was fixed in 7.0.3. Give me something active! - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/855118
Why isn't this being exploited on MAC OS X? I can send a pict of something called "jennifer_my_gf_nude_cs001.pict" and there *WiLL* be s certain % of MAC users who will open it and infcted their machine, WHY isn't it happening? ROI- NO ROI that's why. - astyler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah this is a very misleading post, please report it for removal. (you see win32 has only 10 or so). Its a bad post abusing categories. Its like saying there are 0 viruses for Windows (referring you to category: Viruses - Viruses Made out of Ham - WIN32 : )
- antiwmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>same *****...different article. i have not had a virus on my linux (ever) OR windows systems for years @ home.
you mean linux without virii protection / firewall and
windows WITHOUT virii protection / firewall ?
if you plug windows into the net(fresh install) it will kill you in matter of seconds. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is