Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux Linux and UNIX-like operating systems in general are regarded as being more secure for the common user, in contrast with operating systems that have "Windows" as part of their name. Why is that? When entering a dispute on the subject with a Windows user, the most common argument he tries to feed me is that Windows is more widespread, and therefore, more vulnerable. Apart from amusing myths like "Linux is only for servers" or "does it have a word processor?", the issue of Linux desktop security is still seriously misunderstood.
Thread beginning with comment 323775
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wrong assumptions...
by raver31 on Sun 20th Jul 2008 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong assumptions..."
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

"In a properly configured system, an infected program running with user's priviledges will not be able to modify any other binary outside the user's home directory


Like in Windows Vista by default

Nope, I can install an application in Vista that can hose the whole system, after copying itself into /Windows/System32


...and, ran as regular users, they will be totally harmless to the system :-).


Like in Windows Vista by default
"

Also no, as a user called Dave, I can download format.com from DOS 5, open a command prompt, and type this

"format c: /u /autotest"

This will run and format the drive without any prompting.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Wrong assumptions...
by casuto on Mon 21st Jul 2008 14:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong assumptions..."
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Nope, I can install an application in Vista that can hose the whole system, after copying itself into /Windows/System32


1. you can't bypass the UAC prompt (if a process is trying to elevate itself or if it's trying to copy, delete, modify a file in a protected location, an UAC prompt will appear).
2. you can't bypass the Vista's code integrity check: system files have mandatory code integrity, you can't replace them!

Instead, in linux with a single command it's possible to replace the whole kernel due to lack of code integrity checks!

Edited 2008-07-21 14:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong assumptions...
by raver31 on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong assumptions..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

2. you can't bypass the Vista's code integrity check: system files have mandatory code integrity, you can't replace them!

Instead, in linux with a single command it's possible to replace the whole kernel due to lack of code integrity checks!


Code integrity checking you say? How can Vista check code that is not included by default ?
Like I said, download the DOS5 format command and run it from the command line. Vista will not check this, it will run it blindly and it will hose your machine up, UAC or not.

Also, people are disabling UAC, not by-passing it !

Reply Parent Score: 3