A question on protection software

Rashkae rashkae at tigershaunt.com
Wed Jun 10 22:34:07 UTC 2009

Colin Law wrote:

> The statistics don't prove it one way or the other because we don't
> know how much effort is put in attempting to attack linux machines.
> Windows machines are more commonly affected than Linux ones but this
> in itself does not say anything about the intrinsic security of the OS
> unless we know the relative amounts of effort put in by those with
> evil intent.  Unless there are some other statistics available.
> Colin

Your missing the most important 'statistic'.. which is, how likely is
the average user to get Powned.

With Windows XP, if you don't have a firewall/NAT switch, almost 100%,
since it's impossible to install and update without getting infected
right from the Internet you are updating from.

With Linux, almost 0% until you install a package that will act as a
server to the Internet, (and even then, since you are installing over
the internet, you are getting the latest package with all known remote
exploitable holes fixed.)  Indeed, I've yet to see any Linux desktop
(that wasn't an Internet server) infected with anything.  It doesn't
matter to the average person how much of this is because the system is
inherently more secure and how much is because the
5% people using Linux aren't really being targeted by non-server
malware.  The end result is what it is.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list