Re: Why linux is less prone to viruses

ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 16:04:55 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
There are several reasons. For one, 'everybody' is writing MS viruses -
hardly anyone bothers with Linux viruses - security by obscurity.
Bull***. There are enough linux systems on the network for virusess
to propagate if viruses were possible.

There isn't a single linux virus in the wild.

Exactly the point. Because no one bothers. Proofs of concept exist,
viruses don't.

Not true at all.

No one bothers, simply because it doesn't work. Every single
"proof of concept" requires that somebody actually install and
execute the "virus". None of them are able to simply propagate
by themselves.

And yes, if there actually was a way to make a virus to attack
Unix systems, you can be assured that virtually all of the
creeps that make them would almost immediately abandon Microsoft
as a target and redirect everything at Linux and other Unix
systems. That is because while Microsoft has 90+ percent of the
desktop, the Internet runs on Unix. To make a big splash with a
Microsoft virus requires infecting millions of computers,
because each infection directly affects only a single computer.

To make an equally big splash with a Unix virus would require
merely infecting a few dozen computers. That would shutdown
Internet connectivity for millions of others. If it were
possible, it *would* be the main target. It isn't.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Loading