Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:14 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Privacy, Security, Encryption A Computerworld editorial takes note of some interesting changes Dell made to the Linux page we linked to last week. They watered down some of their pro-Linux claims, but not as far as you might think.
Thread beginning with comment 431135
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
From the article ...
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 22:26 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Besides, at the Internet server level, Linux is already as popular as Windows. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, all the top Internet sites, except the ones owned by Microsoft, run Linux. If a hacker really wanted to score big, would you want to crack some guy running Windows 7 or Google?


The problem with this logic is that the person running the server is a lot less likely to be on some random P2P network, downloading all kinds of pr0n and warez onto the machine running the server.

You see, it's a lot easier to attack someone who is actively running your malware on a machine with no anti-virus or spyware protection, without any prodding on your part.

Reply Score: 4

RE: From the article ...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 03:08 in reply to "From the article ..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The problem with this logic is that the person running the server is a lot less likely to be on some random P2P network, downloading all kinds of pr0n and warez onto the machine running the server.

You see, it's a lot easier to attack someone who is actively running your malware on a machine with no anti-virus or spyware protection, without any prodding on your part.

And even if they were...? Linux still has far fewer pieces of malware written for it than Windows ever did. Windows even had a nice little boost in the early days thanks to its compatibility with another horrible OS, MS-DOS.

Linux has no "binary backwards compatibility" or "legacy poor-security garbage design" to stick to. At least, not nearly to the extent Microsoft products do. And it has no real, market-driven (commercial) reason to.

Edited 2010-06-23 03:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: From the article ...
by WorknMan on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 03:22 in reply to "RE: From the article ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

And even if they were...? Linux still has far fewer pieces of malware written for it than Windows ever did.


Well, Linux doesn't have that much malware written for it for the EXACT reason that these kinds of users largely don't exist on the Linux platform. Why write malware for dumb users to install, if dumb users aren't using the platform? By and large, dumb users don't run servers, so the popularity of Linux as a server platform is irrelevant when comparing how much malware exists for Linux vs Windows.

I have little doubt that if Linux / Windows had an equal amount of dumb users behind the wheel and an equal amount of malware written for them, there'd probably still be more exploits on Windows, but Linux wouldn't exactly be immune either.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: From the article ...
by nt_jerkface on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 06:40 in reply to "RE: From the article ..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Linux has no "binary backwards compatibility" or "legacy poor-security garbage design" to stick to. At least, not nearly to the extent Microsoft products do. And it has no real, market-driven (commercial) reason to.


Malware that is injected into warez is not taking advantage of backwards compatibility. It has nothing to do with "legacy poor-security garbage design" either. There is no isolation layer within Linux that would protect it from a trojan injected into an executable.

If Linux users were the majority and millions of them were carelessly downloading crap from unverified sources then you would have far more trojans like the one in the Unreal IRCd.
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2010/06/trust-us-that-linux-trojan-is-no...

Malware today is mostly the product of computer criminals within Eastern Europe looking to profit, not from pricks who are looking to hack for the sake of it.

Edited 2010-06-23 06:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: From the article ...
by bert64 on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 08:42 in reply to "RE: From the article ..."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

On the other hand, Linux has source code backwards compatibility going a lot further than windows... Applications written for early unix systems can often compile and run successfully on a modern linux box.

Most linux malware is in the form of backdoored services that are intended to be manually installed and used by a hacker, whereas windows malware is typically automated because few hackers would manually target windows machines - their only value is in large hordes for ddos/spam purposes.

Reply Parent Score: 2