Linux security

[Lorin B Pino]

Daniel Carrera wrote:

> 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.

I know nothing of the technical side of the linux os, but if you prefer 
a humorous take on viruses, and what it takes to run some on linux, then 
see:
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/25/1430222&from=rss
A quick google gave this article which may be of interest to you:
http://librenix.com/?inode=21
Hopefully those will answer (or start to answer) your questions.
~Lorin