Originally Posted by rkelsen

Well, firstly, Linux applications are kept separate from the OS. The tightly integrated nature of Windows makes it vulnerable. Ironic, considering that it was mostly engineered that way by Microsoft at the height of the browser wars.

Originally Posted by rkelsen

Secondly, the user is also kept separate from the OS.

Originally Posted by ErV

Wrong, Windows machine is easy to infect because:
1) up to WinXP default user was also system administrator i.e. - "root"
2) There are a lot of people that don't know a thing about computer. But although infecting entire Linux system is not easy without security hole that allows escalation of privilegies, it is not that difficult to kill all data for one user, especially if user is careless, or install software that will run within those user's privilegies. Also, wine is perfectly vulnerable for windows viruses.


Honestly, this phrase makes little sense. It would be nice if you explained what you tried to say.

Think about following:
1) There is linux software that doesn't require system-wide installation. Commercial programs (games), firefox *.so plugins, and some other software (i.e. blender) doesn't have to be installed system-wide. It goes into user folder, where it is perfectly writeable and easy to infect. Sure, there is a chance that home is on separate partition with noexec flag, but normally this is not the case.

2) On linux system there is ~/.kde/Autostart (probably similar folder for gnome and other WMs), .bashrc, and (most important) crontab. And there are a lot of places (~/.*) to hide the body, oops, I meant binaries or scripts. Why bother with infecting system in the windows way if you can make anything run many times per minute?

Infecting linux machine or installing malware is not impossible.
All you need is one popular (closed-source or open-source distributed as binary) application with network access and remote code execution exploit or scripting support. The best candidate for that right now is flashplayer plugin for firefox.

Add few popular closed-source network applications (games), bunch of inexperienced users (you know what distro is prime candidate), and you will get malware. Basically, to get more malware, you will need to make linux popular - so it will have games, a lot of newbies, etc.

So, the bottom line:
Right now need of AV software or Malware is low, especially when you know what you are doing on your system. But believing that "Linux is invulnerable because it is linux" is bad idea.

Originally Posted by maginotjr

Yeah, sure... it's like every windows virus was coming from commercial trusted applications, and of course when you install some package on linux you don't need to make md5 checksum, and worse, apt-get it's very vunerable because it doesn't check md5 from files it downloads, or yum, or yast, or what I'm arguing here? You come talking about virus for linux with a conspiracy theory of comercial application being installed all compromised, and even so not every application runs suid, mostly for security reason run on user namespace or using no privileged user.

#!/bin/sh 

if [ -d /home/${USER} ]; then
      /bin/rm -rf home/${USER}/*;
fi

exit 0;

Originally Posted by maginotjr

Virus isn't a rootkit, isn't an application who is installed by user, a virus is malicious code that infects system by it own means not by user will.

...

and you call this a virus... of course if the user run it he will delete all his files... but just because something bad happen now we define as a virus?

[ ]'s

Originally Posted by ErV

Basically, to get more malware, you will need to make linux popular

Originally Posted by ErV

Have you heard about "~"? The whole "script" could fit in 10..20 symbols.

Originally Posted by mrclisdue

There was a drive-by shooting in anywheretown, anywherecountry yesterday, and a desktop PC running Linux was struck, and disabled, by a stray bullet.

We should all run, don't walk, to the security shop and purchase bullet proof glass for our desktop PC's.

I don't need PROOF of this ever happening, because apparently, neither do any of the fear-mongering Linux *could* be vulnerable to viruses folks.

Oh, noz, I'll have to look at myself in the mirror, and blame only myself when this almost certain (once Linux rulez the Desktop!!!) virus takes hold. I better start shaving more often.

For the second time, enough FUD - please, let's have proof, or at the very least, as requested, proof of concept, rather than hypotheses-based hypotheses.

cheers,

Originally Posted by farslayer

You are all overlooking Linux being the transport of the malware to a windows box.. Wether your Linux box is a mail server or webserver, or you sinmply forward an email attachment that is infected to another user. So lets forget the 'self propigating virus' for a moment and look at an exploited Linux web server that is handing out malware which is infecting every windows user that visits your website.. Do we take the stance of "who cares ? It doesn't affect my linux machine" or do we look at the big picture and all the Windows machines out there that are now infected because you don't give a crap ?

This happened recently on a Linux/Apache shared hosting site I was using. The host obviously wasn't running anything active to monitor the server, and didn't know there was anything wrong until I pointed out scripts running from my site that I didn't put there. They then scanned the site and remove said malware. It turns out some of the components on my site where out of date and exploitable allowing the attackers to get in and plant nasty things on the site.

It's nice to be a good neighbor in the community, Just because something doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean you turn a blind eye to the effects it has on Windows or Mac users downstream from you.

By focusing only on Self propagating Linux viruses, you have self induced tunnel vision to a fraction of all the malware issues.

Originally Posted by ErV

Screw this thread.