hi can any one tell me why Linux is virus as compare to windows

Do a search on LQ here, for a query of words like 'linux virus' and you will quickly find MANY threads on the subject.

while it's possible for a virus to appear on Linux the chances of Linux getting hit with the virus of the day is minimal. it's really a numbers game. Windows still occupies over 90% of Internet users, hence there will be a 90% probability that a new virus will be written on a Windows platform, for a Windows platform. Moreover, Linux is open source whereas Windows is closed source. Such that when there is a problem, it's a lot easier for Linux people to fight over who gets to fix the problem first whereas with Windows, users have to either depend on the latest Windows update or hope that one of the mainstream virus detection companies can come up with a solution fast.

viruses are really glitches in the system. glitches that can get triggered intentionally. here's a perfect example. today it was announced that:
Now, had not this announcement been made, all hands would be claiming that Excel has a virus... is really the same thing!

- Perry

no, why affect a gnu/linux system when you can infect a windows system twice as fast?

it is _not_ a numbers game.

if that were the case, apache on linux would be getting attacked much more than microsoft.

it's a better design game.

clear dividing line between user and admin:

all pre-xp desktops ran as a root equivalent, giving every tom,dick, and harry easy access to system internals. even xp's admin user is a joke as it's a bolt on after thought and can be gotten around easily (i'm told).

linux has a three tiered permission structure and doesn't auto execute things based on extension:

.bat, .com, .exe, etc.

no registry:

feared by users lest they break something, treated as a playground by malware writers.

activeX/I.E :

browser _not_ a integral part of the file management system.


looking at it from the outside, if you were actually _trying_ to design an insecure system(for whatever reason), you would do all of the above.

Because the hardware support is crap and most people like things that just work !
then they do not install linux, and gain experience in hacking and ... spend time with windows or mac

Windows people are always fond of saying "Well, we're a bigger target." BS! That has little or nothing to do with it. All of our code is open source! If a cracker wanted to pick the easiest target, wouldn't it be the one he had the source code for?

Guess not. That whole "We're the biggest target, so of course we get attacked more." argument is wrong. Privilege escalation is just much harder to do on a properly secured operating system.

Also, shouldn't forget that Windows is a monoculture: IE and Outlook Express are found on almost all Windows systems. Thus, a virus written for an IE/OE architecture finds fertile grounds.

Compare that to the situation with Linux or any other *nix. Choices, choices, choices. Everyone's architecture is at least somewhat different. This makes the invasion/infection/propagation problem MUCH harder.

You would be, I am afraid, hopelessly naiive (pardon me) to assume that any computer-system could be "virus free" for any reason that might be remotely-connected to its supplier.

Microsoft Windows garners a rather-unfair reputation for "vulnerability' just from the idea that every user is an all-powerful "Administrator."

Any program that finds itself executing on a particular computer will find itself executing "in the context of a particular 'user'" and therefore "able to do what 'this user' can do." This is just as true for Linux as it is for Windows. But herein lies one very-important difference...

In the Linux, and OS/X, environments, a 'user' probably is not regarded by the system as being "all powerful." Whereas on the Windows system it probably is.

I do not agree that the reputation is unfair. Windows actively encourages users to run as administrators, and developers commonly develop user-level software that needs administrator privileges to run.

If Windows made it simple to run as an ordinary user, while opening an administrator session when required, and if Windows' default setup had users configured as ordinary users, and if the Windows security setup made it easy and convenient for developers to write code that properly implemented permissions, then yes the reputation would be unfair.

But as it is, people operate Windows systems as Administrators because Windows strongly encourages that behavior. So the reputation is certainly deserved.

It IS a numbers game, and it IS because of Windows' native lack of security infrastructure. These 2 reasons together make for one heck of a playground for crackers.

The percentage of Windows user who have any idea what they are doing, and can properly secure a Windows system, if FAR outweighed by users who can't do anything but type a resume, browse the web and turn the computer on and off. Windows, in its attempt to be as easy as possible to use, lets users work as administrators by default. Users must explicitly configure new non-admin accounts. But then most applications won't work in those accounts without security tweaking.

Linux, in contrast, started as a geekland system, and most people using Linux have a fair concept of security. Linux users are by default normal users, and must explicitly become root/admin to gain access to restricted areas.

I think it's looking good that Linux is beginning to pick up steam, and taking some percentage of the market from Windows. However, I also believe that if anyone in the development community attempts to make Linux less secure, they'll probably be shot on sight!

One day in the history, most of the malicious programs were found in Apple/Macintosh (68030 age).
Another day in the history when information highway was emerging, entire UNIX network died, because somebody threw a warm into network.

Both of them learned. Somebody and many users did not.

Happy Penguins!