debunking "Linux Vs. Windows VIruses" (Score 2, Insightful)

Much of this article represents widely held ideas about modern Unix-like OSes that are either false now, will change in the near future, or are based on 20 year-old ideas about Unix. These seem to stem from the idea that the *nix OS will be installed on a large, multi-user server running many small limited-function tools such as text-based e-mail clients. This is changing. Many of these operating systems are installed on single-user desktops running large, graphical applications such as Evolution and KMail which attempt to be very user friendly.

Here are the arguments from the article:

"a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable."

The default behavior of *nix mail clients is to save files if instructed, and not executable. However, There isn't anything inherent to *nix which dictates this. A mail client that claims to be more user friendly can also save a file and run it automatically as well. There just hasn't been a popular one in use yet.

"Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system. He could damage his /home directory, but that's about it."

The configuration that Linux has been trying to increase its numbers with, and OS X's main configuration is the single user desktop machine with no automatic backups. To the home user, blowing away /home/foo is the single most disastrous thing that can happen.

"Windows XP, supposed Microsoft's most secure desktop operating system, automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the power to do anything he wants to the computer. ... On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself."

Ok, I agree with these points. However, as Linux penetrates the home user market, the limited capabilities of the regular user will be increased. Remember Lindows? I believe (all) user(s) run as root. The author address Lindows near the end of the article, but he dismisses it as an exception rather than the rule. Ask yourself *why* the developers chose this route. It's because they want more home user/desktop penetration. Expect more of these types of decisions to be made in the future.

"Even worse, the collection of files on a Windows system - the operating system, the applications, and the user data - can't be kept apart from each other. Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted out in any sensibly secure fashion."

Ever look at /usr/lib lately? Over 1500 files in mine at last count, including very few subdirectories and lots of symbolic links. The same for /usr/bin. Or is it /lib? Or /usr/local/lib? Or is it /usr/local/bin? Besides for some accepted practices, most applications dump their libraries in /usr/lib and executables in /usr/bin, but without any organization.

"Linux runs on many architectures, not just Intel, and there are many versions of Linux, many packaging systems, and many shells. But most obvious to the end user, Linux mail clients and address books are far from standardized."

Again, as Linux becomes more popular with home users, one or two mail clients (depending on if one or two desktop environments will survive in 5 years) could possibly dominate the market, on possibly one type of architecture, the x86. As well, Linux prides itself on supporting standards, across different applications.

"Microsoft continually links together its software, often not for technical reasons, but instead for marketing or business development reasons"

Here I will agree with the author, and Linux has application isolation is spades. This is due to developer isolation limiting scope of projects more than a great security model.

"Further, the email programs themselves are designed to act in a more secure manner."

This is true in the present, and developers/distributors are compelled to do so, to make their distribution more attractive as they try to penetrate the home market. Will this continue?

The author goes on to explain why a Linux virus (where's OS X?) would fizzle out and not become the next Sobig.F. As time goes by, the installation and UI becomes more user-friendly, more home users will install Linux. The intelligence quotient of the average user will go down, and as stated above, the possibility of unsafe automatic behaviors of the remaining few popular e-mail clients increase. This will increase the effect Linux viruses will have. They will probably not just fizzle out.

I chose not to address OS X, since the article was titled "Linux vs. Windows Viruses" and only mentions OS X in passing.

Everyone would like to believe that Linux is more secure than Windows, but that is due to accident more than by design. Unix (which Linux was modelled after) was never designed with security in mind. The Unix Hater's Handbook tears apart the Unix security model (or absence thereof). I refer you to chapter 12. Their arguments are outdated as well, but the history and legacy is still there. A lot still needs to be done in terms of Linux security before it can be said that in an equivalent environment and set of demographics, Linux is more secure than Windows.

BTW, I run the "unstable" branch of Debian GNU/Linux exclusively on my desktop and love it dearly. I just want to see it succeed as a vastly superior choice to Windows in all its forms. We need to address all current problems outlined above and guard against future problems that may occur as the user demographic changes.