On 05/20/11 13:13, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 05/20/2011 12:38 PM, Rick Sewill wrote: >> There have been Linux viruses in the past. > AIUI, most of them have been "proof of concept" projects used to prove > that a particular vulnerability existed and could be exploited. None of > those were ever released "into the wild," however, and can safely be > ignored. Also, one of the reasons there haven't been more malicious > viruses for Linux is the fact that writing one takes much more technical > skill than it does to create a Windows virus. (I've heard that there > are programs that allow you to pick a vector and a payload then write a > custom Windows virus for you, meaning that the user doesn't need even > the slightest programming skills.) The greater level of skill needed > means that most of the people out there who'd want to release a > malicious Linux virus wouldn't know how to create one and those who do > know don't find it worth their time because Windows viruses are far more > profitable for them. None of this means that Linux is inherently safe > from malware, of course. It does mean, however, that the current > threat is negligible. +1 However, I think the reason why more attacks are against Windows because of it's ubiquity. The Linux footprint in the world population is almost invisible when compared to Linux. So, it is the obvious choice for targeting because the payoff (i.e. the number of hits) would be much larger. I think that if Linux, with it's level of complexity were the dominant desktop environment, and Windows occupied today's Linux's footprint, I think you would have see much much more worms and trojans and other malware infecting Linux, because there would be considerably more brainpower available to do the dirty work. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
