Is Linux really secure?

[brian]

I know there's a general feeling that Linux is more secure than Windows - after all, I'm under the impression that no virus has yet been released that specifically targets Linux machines.

However, as someone with a lot of experience in the hosting industry, I know that Linux servers are routinely hacked, either directly for root access, or else software applications on the servers themselves.

Is it therefore simply the case that Linux, in being a far smaller market share of home computers - are just not worth creating viruses for, especially as there are so many different types of Linux in that small market share?

And does the common occurence of hacked Linux servers mean that - should Linux be more widely used - that therefore it would suffer security concerns and problems on a par with Windows?

[beatrix]

Originally Posted by brian

Is it therefore simply the case that Linux, in being a far smaller market share of home computers - are just not worth creating viruses for, especially as there are so many different types of Linux in that small market share?

And does the common occurence of hacked Linux servers mean that - should Linux be more widely used - that therefore it would suffer security concerns and problems on a par with Windows?

I would say that the market share is a definite factor. The vulnerability in Windows, I believe, is because of the large number of users that allows for more efficient worm infection. If Linux had about the same number of users as Windows, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a target of malwares and viruses. The same goes with other operating systems.

[John Geoffrey Walker]

Originally Posted by beatrix

I would say that the market share is a definite factor. The vulnerability in Windows, I believe, is because of the large number of users that allows for more efficient worm infection. If Linux had about the same number of users as Windows, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a target of malwares and viruses. The same goes with other operating systems.

This is the official Windows line, but it's wrong. If it was correct then you'd see more viruses for Linux servers than for Windows servers, since most servers run Linux. In fact, there are more Windows server viruses than Linux ones. In fact, I dont think there are any Linux server viruses out in the wild (although there have been a couple of 'proof-of-concept' ones demonstrated).

The problem is that Windows is intrinsicaly insecure. Windows was developed from a single user operating system for stand-alone computers, and security for multi-user systems has had to be added on afterwards. Linux derives from Unix, which was developed as a multi-user system with security built-in right at the start. Unix is more or less built around its security systems. The idea in the minds of its original designers was that, if security was breached then the system wouldn't work at all.

This situation is enhanced by the open-source nature of Linux. A recent article in New Scientist (22 July 2006) carried an article about recent developments in computer security. Four sets of university-based researchers were quoted in the article as working on Linux, developing improvements, specifically in the area of memory randomisation, while Microsoft was only quoted as copying features from Linux into Vista. Of course, cutting-edge independent researchers cannot work on Windows, since Microsoft keeps the code secret. And unless and until Microsoft changes this policy, Windows will always trail behind Linux in improvements in security.

Incidentally, the following message appears when I test my Linux firewall with Shields Up:

All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.) Relative to vulnerabilities from Windows networking, this computer appears to be VERY SECURE since it is NOT exposing ANY of its internal NetBIOS networking protocol over the Internet.

I think they shouldn't assume every computer on the net is a Windows one, but it's nonetheless reassuring to know that my firewalls are working 100%.

[Slashmire]

Although I do not diss Mac or Linux at all, I'd have to say that it's probably not because of them, but because of those who intend to do harm. I mean, Mac has less virus...but is that because it has more protection, or simply because less virus makers are active on a mac...

[felice206]

I would have to say Mac has less virus' only because it's not used as much as say a PC. Have to say that Linux is the same, if more people used it there would be just as many problems as say a PC running Windows would have.

[Darksat]

Walker is right, Linux runs 80% of the worlds webservers yet windows servers are way easier to hack.
Linux in general is way more secure.
Although it depends on the Linux distro and how it is configured.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by brian

I know there's a general feeling that Linux is more secure than Windows - after all, I'm under the impression that no virus has yet been released that specifically targets Linux machines.

However, as someone with a lot of experience in the hosting industry, I know that Linux servers are routinely hacked, either directly for root access, or else software applications on the servers themselves.

Is it therefore simply the case that Linux, in being a far smaller market share of home computers - are just not worth creating viruses for, especially as there are so many different types of Linux in that small market share?

And does the common occurence of hacked Linux servers mean that - should Linux be more widely used - that therefore it would suffer security concerns and problems on a par with Windows?

Hi
Im not agree with you. Linux is not secure that much but in case of virus linux is good.

[billysiddle]

Originally Posted by brian

I know there's a general feeling that Linux is more secure than Windows - after all, I'm under the impression that no virus has yet been released that specifically targets Linux machines.

However, as someone with a lot of experience in the hosting industry, I know that Linux servers are routinely hacked, either directly for root access, or else software applications on the servers themselves.

Is it therefore simply the case that Linux, in being a far smaller market share of home computers - are just not worth creating viruses for, especially as there are so many different types of Linux in that small market share?

And does the common occurence of hacked Linux servers mean that - should Linux be more widely used - that therefore it would suffer security concerns and problems on a par with Windows?

Hi
Im not agree with you... Because In my office we are using Linux i.e. Obuntu version..Frequently we are losing our files..but Linux is good anti virus OS..Anyway Thanks for sharing information...