Response to “Antivirus – Community Ubuntu Documentation”
This is a response (as of 10-06-2013) to the following sections on the Community Ubuntu Documentation wiki page “Antivirus” (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus): No disrespect is intended with my replies.
1) “Possible reasons Linux is less prone to malware”
2) “Root User vs normal usage”
3) “Market Share Myth”
The Ubuntu documentation is in red and my replies are in black. All quotes from the wiki are direct quotes.
——————-
Possible reasons linux is less prone to malware
- Programs are run as normal user, not Root User
- More eyeballs on the code, nowhere for malware to hide
- Vast diversity makes it difficult to reproduce flaws in a system
- All software and drivers are frequently updated by Package Managers
- Software is generally installed from vast Repositories not from unfamiliar websites
- Developers/programmers are recognised as Rock Gods rather than treated with contempt
- Elegant, secure code is admired & aspired to. Hasty kludges are an embarrassment
Response to #1: Both Windows (2000/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10) and Ubuntu Linux can run software as a normal user.
Response to #2: Myth. If anything, there would be so much code (like in the Linux kernel) that no one could constantly go through all of the code to make sure that no “monkey wrenches” have been thrown into the works. 🙂
Take a look at: http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/the-myth-of-linuxopen-source-security/
Response to #3: I assume you mean many different types of hardware when you said “vast diversity”. That is not always true. If there is a flaw in the Linux kernel, technically it could affect all Linux systems that have not been patched.
Response to #4: This does not guarantee that no viruses can take over your system. This is a poor argument.
Response to #5: You are assuming that the servers hosting the files for the repositories are not infected with a viruses. This does not guarantee that no viruses can make their way into your system. This is a poor argument.
Response to #6: …no comment…
Response to #7: Not all software for Linux is secure. For example, the BIND DNS server has had multiple security issues over a 15+ year span. Not good.
“A computer virus, like a biological virus, must have a reproduction rate that exceeds its death (eradication) rate in order to spread. Each of the above obstacles significantly reduces the reproduction rate of the Linux virus. If the reproduction rate falls below the threshold necessary to replace the existing population, the virus is doomed from the beginning — even before news reports start to raise the awareness level of potential victims.” by Ray of http://librenix.com
A virus, if programmed correctly, could just lay dormant until other computer(s) are detected for possible infection can be found. Most viruses, in my opinion, will only get as far as the computer it infected (whether on Windows or Linux).
Root User vs normal usage
“For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must be writeable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy about such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home directories for viruses.” by Ray of http://librenix.com
If the virus uses an exploit in the Linux kernel, it may not matter whether or not the current user has permission to access other files. If you have SE-Linux enabled (assuming you are using a distribution that includes it), that may help prevent the virus from functioning (or at best, functioning correctly).
Market Share Myth
Some people say that linux suffers less from malware because it has less than 1% of the desktop market compared to Windows 90% & suggest that if linux ever increases in popularity then it will suffer just as badly. This argument is deeply flawed & not just by the spurious statistics. Linux dominates server markets(NB: this link dead). Why struggle to write a virus that might knock out a few thousand desktops when knocking out a few thousand servers could knock out a continent? Yet it is the desktop machines that are commonly exploited.
If 90% of computer users switched to Linux overnight, you would see a huge difference in the amount of malware you have for Linux.
What I think you do not understand is that hackers will go after targets that are easy and rich in “bounty”. In my opinion, most Windows users do not understand computer security (and the same would go for Mac OS X and several Linux users). They will click on just about anything, download just about anything, open e-mail attachments without observing if anything is out of the ordinary, etc. It is not that Windows is easier to hack than Linux. It is because there are many users that are not knowledgeable about computer security that makes it easier for the hackers to gain access to Windows computers.
Hackers know they have a better chance with Windows users than others. If even 50% of the Windows users suddenly went to Linux, you would have such an increase in malware (albeit not as much of an increase as you would have with 90% of Windows users switching over to Linux), that you may not be ready for it.
I used to use Linux to run a DNS resolver for the house and shop, but that does not mean that the DNS resolver was 100% secure just because I ran it on Linux. I ran it on Linux to save RAM, not for security. If I had let it go (without running any updates), I would have eventually gotten hacked.
“Why struggle to write a virus that might knock out a few thousand desktops when knocking out a few thousand servers could knock out a continent?”
That is speculation. How do you know that all the computers running the power grid, gas systems, etc. are all running Linux? Some could be running UNIX, Mac OS X, or even Windows.
Posted in Computers, Internet and Servers, Operating Systems, Software
Is Linux Immune to Viruses?
The idea that Linux does not get viruses is a myth (http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/hand-of-thief-commercial-linux-malware-kit/).
Windows may have more viruses, but that does not mean that Windows is guaranteed to get a virus. If you open e-mail attachments from people you do not know, run programs without scanning them first, setting insecure root password on your computer, no amount of Windows or Linux can help you there! 🙂
Posted in Operating Systems
Is There Anything Wrong with Using Linux as a Server?
I have used both Windows and Linux on servers. They both are capable operating systems. What you need to ask yourself is “What do I need and/or want?”
I cannot (nor can anyone else) tell you “you need to use Windows…or…you need to use Linux”. If you know what your goals are, then it will make it easier for you to decide which OS to use as a server.
Here are some tips on which OS to use, based upon some possible reasons you have for choosing one OS over the other. Please note these are based upon my own opinions from using both for several years.
| Supports the Most Popular Web Technologies | Windows/Linux (a tie)
(Windows does support ASP & ASP.Net, whereas Linux officially does not) |
|---|---|
| Makes Better Use of Your CPU | Windows |
| Makes Better Use of Your Memory | Linux |
| More Flexible (not counting file-system security permissions) | Linux |
| Out-of-the-Box Security | Windows |
| More Stable | Windows / Linux (a tie)* |
| Availability of Free Server Software | Linux |
| Available Online Support | Windows / Linux (a tie) |
| Flexibility of File-system Security | Windows** |
| More User-Friendly | Windows |
* In my opinion, 99% of crashes on Windows are due to faulty hardware and/or drivers. However, both Windows (NT family) and Linux are stable operating systems, when using good, stable hardware and good, stable drivers.
Posted in Internet and Servers, Operating Systems
Response to “5 Reasons Why Linux Is Better Than Windows”
This is a response to the author’s post of “5 Reasons Why Linux Is Better Than Windows” (http://www.ittwist.com/2013/02/5-reasons-why-linux-is-better-than.html).
My responses are in purple and direct-quotes from the author are in red. Please note that no disrespect is intended with my replies.
Update 03-06-2021: The author of the blog post I responded to appears to have removed his post some time ago.
1. Highly Secure :
The main plus point of the linux is security . In windows , we have generally noticed it is very much prone to viruses , threats and malware which destroys computer performance by slowing it down. in Linux , there is main feature that it doesn’t supports viruses which doesn’t interfere with your computer speed.
Generally, viruses are made in .exe files ie., executable files , which windows uses as default for running applications but in linux there is no such restriction because it doesn’t supports exe files. So, it doesn’t supports viruses too.
Let’s take these two paragraphs a little bit at a time.
The main plus point of the linux is security .
That is something that Linux has been advertising for a long time. However, Linux may not be as secure as you may think.
Technically Linux is just the OS kernel, not a whole distribution. For the sake of argument, if Linux were 100% secure, it would not really matter since the software you would run on Linux would have security issues anyway.
In windows , we have generally noticed it is very much prone to viruses , threats and malware which destroys computer performance by slowing it down.
Granted there are more malware for Windows, but Linux has malware as well. Here is a good example.
https://blogs.rsa.com/thieves-reaching-for-linux-hand-of-thief-trojan-targets-linux-inth3wild/
A Trojan is being sold to infect Linux users’ computers. As you can see, Windows is not the only OS with bad guy problems. Do not ever think that using Linux makes you immune to malware. It does not. Also, not all malware causes a noticeable slowdown to your computer.
in Linux , there is main feature that it doesn’t supports viruses which doesn’t interfere with your computer speed.
That does not make sense. How can an operating system “not support” viruses?
Generally, viruses are made in .exe files ie., executable files , which windows uses as default for running applications but in linux there is no such restriction because it doesn’t supports exe files. So, it doesn’t supports viruses too.
The author seems to think that viruses only come in exe files. Viruses come in all kinds of file extensions, not just exe files. Saying that Linux does not get viruses because it “doesn’t support exe files” is incorrect.
Linux can get viruses too, but without running a real-time anti-virus program on your Linux box, how can you have the potential to know that you do not have a virus on your Linux computer? People who say that “no viruses” is a reason to switch to Linux do not know what they are talking about.
2.Fast Boot :
Now linux operating system boots faster as compare to windows operating system. The linux kernels are much improved which boots them up within few seconds .
Like Ubuntu , Linux Mint , Fedora etc. are linux operating system that boots within 15 seconds.
We are showing you a video depicted ubuntu , using linux kernel to boot at faster speed.
[The video can be seen on the blog’s website. The link to the blog post is at the top.]
Puppy Linux , a smallest linux distro that is about 150 MB boots within 5 s , that loads perfectly into RAM & consumes low hardware in your computer .
The video looks fake. Regardless, faster boot time is not a reason to say that Linux is better than Windows.
Also, you cannot compare Puppy Linux with Windows. They are not in the same league.
3. Built In Software Packages :
In windows we have to install extra , must have softwares for eg., MS Office. But linux have much smaller size (Less than 2 GB) as compare to windows ( More than 2GB ). It includes the packages like Libre office, Cloud storage , browsers as default which is there when you install it.
This point does not make any sense whatsoever.
Keep in mind, size is not nearly as important as usability. Linux is not user-friendly (despite what others may tell you) when compared to Windows.
4. No Cost !!:
Windows operating system is paid ,which offers the users to try it & activate their operating system at the reasonable prices. But Mostly users activate their windows operating system by unfair practices by using cracks or activators which contains viruses . To read what is difference between Original & Pirated Windows follow this link.
[The link can be seen on the blog’s website. The link to the blog post is at the top.]
Linux is free of cost , you can easily download the distro on the manufacturer website & install it on your machine.
How does this count as Linux being better than Windows?
5. Crashes rarely :
If you are using windows , you might experience a crashing problem means windows operating system generally involves blue screen of death ( Involves a blue screen after which your pc restarts ). But in linux , operating system crashes rarely . Sometimes the operating systems application programs freezes but do not lead to restart or unwanted crash.
Most of the time (I would say 99% of the time), crashes on Windows are due to faulty hardware or drivers. Linux is not crash proof. On Windows, you usually have several drivers installed from different sources. All of them having to work together with the OS.
On Linux, I believe many people use whatever drivers Linux has in its kernel for their hardware. This would technically make the computer more stable, since all the drivers they are using were put into the kernel by the same people who manage the kernel.
The disadvantage to using generic device drivers from the Linux kernel is that you may not get your hardware’s full potential. It would be better, in my opinion, to use drivers from the manufacturer of your hardware (if possible). Remember, if you have bad memory, even Linux will not be able to really help you there 100%.
Also, Linux has its own version of blue-screening called Kernel Panic.
Conclusion: Windows and Linux are both good operating systems. You must decide which is best for your needs/wants. However, please do not accidentally mislead people into thinking that Linux is king of the operating systems. It is not, but Linux can and does work for millions of people around the world.
Posted in Operating Systems