So, from what i understand, most viruses are written for Micro$oft O/S's because:

1.) It's Micro$oft
2.) It's most popular and an attractive target for making a name.

My question to the esteemed members of this forum:

Once Linux is more prominent and it too has a vast following; how long until we see a steady flow of hostile code aimed at the Penguin?

Your thoughts?

LinuxPimp

I don't know. It sounds like a lot less fun to write viruses for linux unless you know some way to find out the root password, cause as normal user you can't do much (not that I write viruses btw). But I think it might increase a bit. I don't think linux will soon get close to windows size anyway as most people still don't know much about it or don't care about windows being less stable secure etc.

I would say you might see more virus attempt to spread but nothing like what's happening with Windows. And I believe this for the following reasons:

- I know it's a matter that makes people argue alot but personnally I think a Linux appropriatly managed is more secure than a Windows managed the same way. Too many things hidden by MS that make the best Windows sysadmin never sure his system is really safe.

- It's easy to write a virus that run on all flavours of Windows, but Linux setup can make one linux box so different than another one. Having a virus that runs fine on most distros whatever the local variable are (etc...) that's a real challenge that will always keep Linux safer than Windows.

This is a good question indeed.. There are a few viri/trojans that exist and linux exploits are out there, but rootkits are the most destructive in my opinion. Although none of this will effect an updated, and moderatly hardend linux box. The weakness will always be with software that runs on linux mostly, as linux is really only a kernel.And there have been a few kernel exploits even that have sprouted up in the last year, but it seems that as soon as an exploit sprouts up, the open source community is on top of the update.Im sure if it gets to the point that more viri shows up effecting linux, we will see many forms of protection, of course the real threat is always when someone gains root acess,,,and this will always be the worst case.......ouch.......

I read a report claiming that there are currently around 60,000 malicious viruses for windows, around 3 for mac, and 0 for linux.

The reason people like to target microsoft is not because it's popular or because it's a big name, it's because it's easy! It's very hard to attack a linux box because of root password :-D

In addition - the standardisation inherent in the Windows email client space is a factor - contrast this with the relative lack of homogeneity in the Linux mail client space, think Evolution, KMail, etc etc...... amongst other matters.

Ok, I dont understand. If Im running as Non-Administrator and create myself a "Restricted User" account on my Windows box, will that make the virus or worm do less damage to my system???? Or, is Windows different in that perspective???

The problem with Windows is, that it runs as Administrator by default. Which is a no no. In linux, during the installing, you get to creat 'root' and a restricted 'user' account separately. In Windows you cant do that.

When you take away all the anti-Microsoft, anti-Bill Gates, anti-monopoly and anti-USA virus writers, whos left? Someone thats gonna write Linux viruses "for the fame"? The only way to receive your fame is to get caught and go to jail. Doesn't seem like there would be much interest in that, but this is mho.

How about anti-virus makers "sponsoring* virus writer to insure their users are appropriately scared to keep buying their products? Did you notice how the shares of such companies tend to go up after a worldwide worm attack?

And how about Microsoft not paying much attention to security because they know some "security companies" are making alot of business selling soft to protect windows users. Then you don't know what sort of nasty business this can lead to.

I'm not saying this above statements are true (I obviously have no proof..). I'm just saying they make sense, so could be true...

Linux is stable and secure because it's not (yet?) rotten by money. I wish it'll stay like this...

Funny personal anecdote:

One of my friends in Seattle has just started working for MS in their anti-Linux division (those guys that put out that "Windows is 30% cheaper to run than linux" propaganda). I met her new boyfriend a few weeks ago (who also works for MS) and he is a consultant for their Security division, e.g. how best to handle the threats on a windows box. I had to be polite for my friend so I couldn't bring myself to ridicule him on the inherent contradictions in his job description!