Linux security

[Daniel Carrera]

Hello,

I'm wondering if Linux really is inherently resistant to viruses. 
Notice, I don't mean "completely inmune". I want to figure out if saying 
"it is extremely hard to make a Linux virus" is a true statement.

First, let's be clear about the threat: loss of user data. The operating 
system itself is not that important. It's your critical documents. So, 
Linux's separation of priviledge does not actually help here.

So, if we remove separation of priviledge from the equation, what does 
Linux have to protect you? I guess that we depend on the applications we 
use being well-written. But if that's the case, then it's not really 
Linux that is better but Firefox.

I can only think of one attack vector where Linux is better. In Windows 
any file with the .exe extension is executable. Someone can send you a 
file called pretty_pictures.jpg.exe and people will click on it. In 
Linux the user has to actually go out of his way to make it executable. 
But we are still depending on the email client ont doing a chmod +x when 
the attachment has the mime-type executable/octet-stream.

What else is there protecting Linux?

After thinking hard about this, I can't really see what makes Linux more 
secure for protecting user data besides having better applications.

Any insights would be welcome.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   ...and starting today, all passwords must contain
    \/_/    letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and
    /       squirrel noises.