How to get down off a duck ( why Linux is inherently more secure than Windows.)

A Man and His Penguin ^ | Monday, October 6th, 2008 at 6:32 am | bigbolshevik

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

As promised, this is an article about why Linux is inherently more secure than Windows. I don’t promise that it’s 100% accurate down to the last detail; in fact, I have purposely simplified many details, and left out some more complex topics. I apologise about the length, too; it’s rather long, but I hope it’s interesting reading for people who are new to Linux as well as those who have not properly tried the Linux platform yet.

———-
In an earlier article “How to get down off an elephant”, I described why
Windows viruses don’t infect Linux systems, and why you don’t need to
worry about viruses when you move to Linux. Quite rightly I got picked
up on what I didn’t mention: Viruses written for Linux.

In this article, I’ll explain why Linux viruses are so few and far
between, and why they are really not worth worrying about at this time.

There are always people around who will claim that the only reason why
there are so few (no?) Linux viruses is because Linux isn’t particularly
wide-spread. They say that if Linux was as popular as Windows, then
there would be as many Linux viruses as there are currently Windows
ones.

I would combat that allegation. Linux is very widely used on
Internet-facing servers. As such, it is the guardian of credit card
details, passwords, social security numbers, and even industrial
secrets. What would be more valuable: Pulling information from a
desktop computer containing Granny’s shopping list, or intercepting a million
credit card numbers being sent from ATMs to a Linux server? Or finding
the blueprints of Boeing’s latest wing design, to sell to
Lockheed-Martin or Airbus?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Mr. K]

Linux bites it

[CE2949BB]

OpenBSD is inherently more secure than any major Linux distro.

[dan1123]

By default, on Vista, the user runs as a limited user account, and can be “elevated” to administrator whenever a program requests it and the user replies “Allow” to the prompt. Much safer, although this system (UAC) seems to annoy Windows users to the point where they turn it off (effectively running as administrator non-stop) or learn to click Allow automatically as I mentioned in the last bullet point. Windows software tends to be written with the assumption that the user is running as administrator, just as they did in Windows XP, and this fires so many UAC prompts that it becomes annoying. This isn’t Microsoft’s fault, it’s the fault of Windows-based software developers for trying to do the kinds of insecure things that require administrator access.

The problem with Microsoft trying to shoehorn a security model on their insecure API is that the "Allow" buttons pop up far too often for things that are not very hazardous, like an instant messaging client accessing the internet. What Microsoft should have done is have the installer handle permissions instead of implementing an annoying runtime popup.

The best thing Linux has going for it as far as virus avoidance is concerned is the package repositories. Instead of downloading from a random website (or running a file received in an email), everything executed is from a widely tested trusted source. Apple has a similar system implemented with their iPhone as well.

[cetarist]

yes, but I hate X windows even more than I hate Windows.

[rightwingextremist1776]

The security of an operating system is in direct proportion of it’s popularity....the more popular the more time more people will spend hacking/writing malicious code to exploit it..... PEROID. Vulnerabilities exist in all code due to the nature of grey areas in the standards that have been established to afford interoperability of software and systems....The key to security isn’t the false notion of invincibility, it’s in maintaining a secure environment and reducing risk.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The article takes on that argument!

[BuckeyeTexan]

The Internet runs on Linux. Anything critical runs on AIX. ;-)

Microsoft sucks!

Been running Linux since the earliest versions of Slackware.

[bornred]

The key to security isn’t the false notion of invincibility, it’s in maintaining a secure environment and reducing risk.

Risk reduction begins with good design. A good design will have fewer bugs to begin with. A poor design will provide a steady stream of new holes for years and years to come.

[AFreeBird]

yes, but I hate X windows even more than I hate Windows.

You can stop X then and run from CLI. Even in runlevel 5. You'll have to get a text based browser though to FReep, and you'll miss out on the pic intensive threads, but what the hey.

I don't know why you have a problem with X though. You have a choice of window managers. And SSHing into another system with X redirection allows you to run any GUI app from that machine, with the UI displayed on yours with no problems what-so-ever. No resource intensive VNC required.

I do it all the time, while I'm sitting on my couch with the laptop FReeping, and playing MP3's on my desktop via Amarok UI redirection. X is quite versatile.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Preach it. That’s the gospel.

[rightwingextremist1776]

That is true...security has to be part of the design from the start....however it is only ONE issue in the “big picture” of securing computer systems. Microsoft has put a great deal of effort into the security of it's designs in the last few generations of the OS. To believe that one commercially available OS is supremely secure over another one is just foolish. Security is as much in the way it is USED as it is in the internal design.....not to mention that once applications are installed the design of the OS is compromised depending on the security of the application. There are MANY layers of security when it comes to the "big picture".

[ShadowAce]

[antiRepublicrat]

Microsoft has put a great deal of effort into the security of it's designs in the last few generations of the OS.

That's the problem. It wasn't built with a concentration on security, that came later in the game, so everything after is duct tape. Until Microsoft's focus on security much of what they did degraded security, like Outlook/VBS and ActiveX. Better to start with an architecture designed for security and keep making it more secure.

To believe that one commercially available OS is supremely secure over another one is just foolish.

There is no such thing as supreme security, but there is relative security, and Windows doesn't do well on that front.

[Knitebane]

Microsoft has put a great deal of effort into the security of it's designs in the last few generations of the OS.

Actually, the latest Mac vs. PC add, the one with PC divvying up money between "advertising" and "fix Vista" realistically demonstrates how Microsoft approaches problems.

Microsoft has generally considered stability and security problems to be marketing problems rather than engineering problems.

While security is a "big picture" thing with a myriad of small things that need to be adequately addressed in order for there to be any security at all, first you have to admit that there is even a "picture" to begin with.

Historically, Microsoft has denied that there were any serious design or implementation problems with Windows at all.

Once, while being interviewed by a German magazine, Bill Gates famously showed his contempt toward users of his software by stating that "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed."

He also said that Microsoft's software isn't the problem, it's you stupid users.

Gates: "It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should look into that."

[bornred]

Security is as much in the way it is USED as it is in the internal design

This way of looking at things would put mass-market systems at a severe disadvantage compared to obscure niche systems whose user base is mostly composed of techies.

Usually, we want to compare apples to apples: would Grandma's computer be more secure if she switches from Vista to Linux? (Assuming she can figure out how to get her work done at all on the new OS.)

[OneWingedShark]

>yes, but I hate X windows even more than I hate Windows.

The UNIX-Hater's Handbook has a chapter on X Windows.

It's a good read.

[OneWingedShark]

>The key to security isn’t the false notion of invincibility, it’s in maintaining a secure environment and reducing risk.
>
>>Risk reduction begins with good design. A good design will have fewer bugs to begin with.
>>A poor design will provide a steady stream of new holes for years and years to come.

Ok, while I don’t disagree with your statements, it begs the question “is Linux a good design?” I think not; just because some can argue that it’s less bad than MS Windows does not make it good.

[tacticalogic]

Actually, the latest Mac vs. PC add, the one with PC divvying up money between "advertising" and "fix Vista" realistically demonstrates how Microsoft approaches problems.

Your faith in the veracity of TV advertisments is disturbing.