UNIXen are inherently better and secure.
Linux a Virus Target?
In an article on vnunet.com, two executives of anti-virus firms opined that Linux would be the next virus target. Here are excerpts from the article:
"Of course we will see more and more attacks on Windows, but Linux will be a target because its use is becoming more widespread," said Raimond Genes, European president for antivirus at Trend Micro. "It is a stable OS, but it's not a secure OS." Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said: "In fact it's probably easier to write a virus for Linux because it's open source and the code is available. So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."
I will be charitable and call these statements "myths" or "misperceptions" rather than other nastier but perhaps more accurate terms. Let's examine and debunk the myths.
Myth: Widespread use equals widespread abuse
This myth goes as follows: Product X (Windows, Outlook, whatever) has more security problems because it is far more widely used than Product Y (Linux, Mutt, whatever).
In fact, the Apache Web server is far more widely used than Microsoft's IIS (Source: Netcraft), but has suffered far fewer security problems (Source: defacement archives).
Update: I have had several comments saying that this survey reveals that Windows
computers account for about 50% of Web servers, but that Apache runs more
web sites. Some people claim that under this metric, therefore, IIS is more widely used than Apache. Even if I accept these figures, the fact is that the defacement archives show Windows defacements outnumbering non-Windows defacements 62 to 38. From this, I still conclude that the number of vulnerabilities in a piece of software does not necessarily correlate with its popularity.
Myth: Linux is not a secure OS
In fact, no commodity OS is "secure". Security is a process, not a product, as dozens of security experts keep reminding us. Linux does, however, have important security enhancements compared to consumer-level Windows operating systems: File permissions and separate user accounts can greatly mitigate the damage caused by malicious software. If all of the security features built-into Linux are properly configured and enabled, Linux is a highly secure system.
For those who need even more security, the U.S. National Security Agency provides a Security Enhanced Linux distribution which contains advanced security features beyond anything found in Microsoft operating systems.
Myth: It is easier to write viruses if you have the OS source code
I would suggest just the opposite: If source code is widely-available, many organizations with an interest in security (such as the NSA, for example) can audit the code, correct security problems, and feed these corrections back to the main code tree.
Why is it that tens of thousands of viruses exist for closed-source systems like Windows (with several of them actively propagating around the Internet as you read this), while only a handful of pathetic "proof-of-concept" viruses have been written for Linux, and none has propagated to any extent?
Why is it that open-source Apache has a far better security record than closed-source IIS?
Why Linux viruses are unlikely
In order for an e-mail virus to propagate, it must be able to:
- Enter the target machine
- Execute on the target machine
- Propagate itself
Linux makes steps 2 and 3 very difficult.
Social Engineering to Enable Execution
Under Windows, a file is marked as "executable" based on its filename extension (.exe, .com, .scr, etc.) Encoding metadata (like file type) into the file name is a very bad idea and has horrendous security consequences. Encoding metadata in this way allows for the simple-minded social-engineering attacks we see on windows: "Click here for a cool screensaver!!!"
Such an attack under Linux would go like this: "Save this file; open up a shell; enable execute permissions on the file by typing 'chmod a+x filename', and then run it by typing './filename'."
Obviously, the Linux permissions system makes such a social-engineering attack very difficult.
Software Flaws to Enable Execution
Another means by which viruses can execute are by exploiting bugs in e-mail client software. Both Outlook and the various Linux mail clients have had their share of bugs, and this is indeed a risk, even on Linux. However, because of the overwhelming uniformity of Windows desktops, a virus which exploits a software bug in Outlook is far more likely to propagate than one which exploits a software bug on a Linux e-mail client. This is simply because of the huge array of Linux e-mail clients in use. At any given time, only a small portion of all Linux users are vulnerable to e-mail client bugs.
Virus Propagation
To propagate itself, an e-mail virus must re-mail itself to others. On Windows/Outlook, this is simple, because there is a uniform, well-known interface for obtaining address lists and sending e-mail. On Linux, this is harder. There is no uniform way for a virus to read your address book, so a Linux virus would have to work harder to propagate itself.
Linux in the Future
There is a trend under Linux to build complex, rich desktop environments which allow rich interaction between programs. These environments could, if not designed correctly, increase the chances for viruses to execute and propagate. So far, however, the designers of these environments seem to be following sensible design and security procedures. No-one, for example, has built a Linux e-mail client which automatically executes an attachment with just one mouse click.
Challenge to Anti-Virus Companies is Over
My anti-virus challenge, which had been running since 5 December 2001, is now (7 May 2002) over. No-one managed to meet the challenge, although one person came close.
The Challengers
There were five entries in the anti-virus challenge:
- Entry 1
- Entry 2
- Entry 3
- Entry 4
- Entry 5 (This one came close)
- But seriously...
Copyright © 2001 David F. Skoll *www.roaringpenguin.com/about/articles/anti-virus.php
I'd like all windows fanboys to read below article:
"Remote shell trojan". In order to be infected by it you must run a binary infected by it, as root. Most binary Linux software is typically signed by the vendors that produce it, and a quick check of the signature would reveal if the package were changed or not. In addition this "Remote shell trojan" cannot replicate across networks, it cannot send itself out as an email attachment, or hunt for and infect network shares. On the other hand the Code Red worm will infect any NT or 2000 machine that has a default configuration without sufficient security updates (estimates run from 300,000 machines and up were infected by Code Red). While the number of UNIX, and Linux viruses will of course increase, but I doubt we will see the explosion that the Windows world has been suffering in recent years. The argument that "the increasing popularity of Linux (and UNIX in general) will mean more viruses" is correct but only in a limited way. The general usage habits and layout of the system will defeat the majority of viruses quite effectively.
*www.seifried.org/security/index.php/UNIX_and_Viruses
