http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...93#post1616293
That's an interesting metaphor. I take it that he means, Linux is such a well written Operating System, that it's basically immune against computer viruses? I don't know if this is true, so I'd like to find out. So I started a thread about this, and it would be cool if you Linux dudes with a lot of knowledge about Linux would like to fill in the facts in this thread. Feel free to discuss.

It's immune to all MS viruses - even when you run Wine, it's not possible to get hammered by them.

There ARE some things Linux has been hit by. But viruses are essentially a non-issue. We simply laugh at the warning emails that panicked Microsofties route around

I think statements like this one are complacent in the extreme. Viruses that affect Linux systems are rare but do exist. There is antivirus software for Linux mainly intended to trap w32 based viruses.
As with any system, your security is only as good as you make it. Never trust anything or anybody.
At base Linux has a very secure structure and hopefully you NEVER run your system as the root user. If you run as a user and acquire a virus the worst that could happen is that it will damage your personal files. If you have not requested an installation of some type of software and you are suddenly requested to give root permission then think very carefully about doing so. i.e. don't give root permission.

There are far more developers for linux (because the source code is openly available) so whenever a virus is released, people can write a fix (aka a patch) far quicker than microsoft can. This is why most virus developers don't even bother, because they know that a virus is going to be relatively ineffective. Plus most linux users are more wised up than your standard windows user, so virus's are spotted and stopped quickly. Linux is NOT immune to virus's, it just doesn't have aids like windows.

As TigerOC stated, I think it all boils down to permissions. This is something that Linux has allways been based on the that MS is just comming into realizing.

A virus cannot attatch itself to any file that cannot be written too... If you are logged onto a user account the worst any virus could do is destroy that particular account. The "root" OS will be un-affected.

That is why it is always discouraged to logon to linux as "root" unless doing maint...

KC

I might be wrong here but does linspire not log you in as root automatically? I was originally going to go with linspire but, well, i decided against it for obvious resons.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Stupid = logging in as root on a normal basis
Stupid = not reading the Lindows/Linspire documentation (Read The "Fine" Manual) and realizing you should create user accounts
Stupid = rm -rf * when logged in as root and being located at /
Stupid = download any old application without knowing what it is and running it
Stupid = chmod -R 777 / (Yes, I know of *nix shops who do this. They are *Nix shops who are in denial and want the insecurity of MacOS Classic back. "Permissions are hard")

Linux has very few bugs, at about 0.17bugs per 1000 lines of code. Commercial software usually has about 20-30 bugs per 1000 lines of code.

If Linux is immune against all Windows viruses, how can a poorly configured Linux distro be less secure than a good configured Windows XP with firewall/antivirus? I mean, even so, having firewall/antivirus on Windows doesn't mean you're immune. You can still get a lot of viruses that there's no protection against.

You're completely wrong. Stupid is basically a human being with low intelligence. All of your examples require knowledge of Linux. Knowledge and intelligence isn't quite the same thing, but I thought it was obvious

Easily. There's more to security than viruses! A well-configured XP with appropriate protection is actually pretty secure. A badly-configured Linux is wide-open.

Examples: Running old versions of software with known exploits (Like the version of SSH Trinity cracked in Matrix 2 thanks to Nmap ). Allowing remote logins using non-secure connections (telnet rather than SSH). Allowing remote root logins. Installing software as root that you don't know for sure is safe. Using easy (or no) passwords.

As the BOFH once put it, "A vanilla linux install is a potential minefield!"

I'm running Mandrake 10.2 on standard security settings. Is that safe? I believe there's no firewall in this mode.

Depends how you use it! What services are running, how good are your passwords, how careful are you with installs, how often do you update. . . ?

A study a while ago found that a vanilla linux install with permanent net connection went six months without getting cracked. So unless you're doing anything silly, you're probably fine.

Well, I use Firefox 1.0.4 and I always save passwords etc. I occasionally order stuff from the internet too. I'd be running the paranoid setting mode, but I couldn't access my Windows partition whilst doing so :/

Services mean are you running any of the following servers?

ssh, ftp, apache, mail, webmin etc. etc.

If you run servers, then you need a firewall to protect you. Even otherwise I choose to have a firewall. Never hurts.

A good personal Linux firewall frontend is firestarter. Excellent for newbies. Very similar to ZoneAlarm for Windows. Simple configuration (if you are satisfied with the defaults). Enough for a desktop system.

For server systems things related to security can start getting complicated very quickly.