Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
Permalink for comment 358661
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It will be patched immediately
by kensai on Wed 15th Apr 2009 13:29 UTC
kensai
Member since:
2005-12-27

Firts, it would be near impossible for a virus to target all Linux distributions, they all place their configuration files in different places, alsao, Linux code is better written and more secure, if handled the right way. Then there is the, it is open source, if the vendor doesn't patch someone will in a few hours from the announcement of the virus.

Take for example the very easy virus writing for LInux tutorial that came up a month or so ago, where it could be very easy to write a virus to exploit the .desktop management in Desktop Environments. Well, the virus was not that easy to execute, you had to make it an executable. And this has been already patched by KDE so it can not hapen, so it came and go so fast, it was not even funny for the writer.

I know there are ways to get a virus or a security problem in Linux, but most of the time, if not always, it requires a big moron of a user to make it happen. QUite the contrary on Windows, someone plugs in a USB on your PC/Laptop and there, you are infected.

Reply Score: 3