Why is linux impervious to Viruses?

[Van Halen Man]

I know that viruses are usually made for windows, but isnt that just because more people use it? So if there were more people who used linux than windows, would all the viruses be for it instead of windows? I need this question answered so that when I argue with my friends about linux being better than windows, I can use this as an example.

[meton_magis]

linux wont run something without you knowing. windows has MANY ways of running executible files that you have no real controll over. it is VERY easy to kill a system with linux. if i write a script that i say plays a game, and say you have to be root, but it really runs the command "rm -r /", your system is nuked. but if you ran a script as root without looking at it first, you probably have no idea what your doing.

[rockinup1231]

To tell ya the truth, I thought there may be viruses for linux. AVG has an AV for linux.

The reason I would argue is that it is more commonly used, therefore those that create malware and whatnot would be more interested in screwing with Windows users. Windows has also been around longer (I will say I think since I really am not sure) so that could be another factor.

Here is what I would argue...

-Linux is free
-The new Wine emulator can run your favorite windows programs
-Updated versions of, let's use Ubuntu for example, come out much more frequently than Windows OS's.

[aysiu]

Impervious is probably too strong a term--resistant is probably more accurately descriptive.

Read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security

[Juan Pablo]

Viruses are not made for Linux because it's pretty hard to infect a Unix-like system like Linux without the user knowing about it. You need special passwords to modify vital parts of the system like /lib or /bin as well as things that are on your PATH like /usr/bin or configurantion files in /etc and file permissions can prevent the reading of /etc/shadow (encrypted passwords file)

Let's say 30% of worldwide servers run Linux, why there are no viruses for these servers? or for Apache? But exploits constantly appear for MS IIS
30% is a considerable amount

The best way in my opinion is loading a kernel module to bypass any password but you still need the root password to load the module into the kernel

[Van Halen Man]

So it is POSSIBLE to get a virus but not likely?

[techieMoe]

So it is POSSIBLE to get a virus but not likely?

That's the long and short of it, yes. No operating system is ever 100% virus-proof, but as far as OSes go, Linux and UNIX/BSD are more resistant than most of the others on the market.

There are many theories as to why (obscurity, better design, permissions, lack of interest) and it's likely all of them are valid, but I doubt any single theory is the reason.

[Cabhan]

Right. The whole "Well if Linux was the #1 OS, it would have viruses" argument is flawed based on the Apache webserver, which has virtually no exploited vulnerabilities.

I really chalk it up to the UNIX permissions system and the VERY VERY strict separation of powers. A regular user CANNOT, once again, CANNOT harm the system at large. However, you are also not using the administrative account as your regular account. Since you generally have to okay all executables, any moderately intelligent user can figure out what's going on.

If people didn't use the admin account in Windows, it would be more secure as well. Unfortunately, whereas Linux makes it easy for an admin to work from a less-privileged account, Windows doesn't, so many people default to using an admin one.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

actually, from what i've heard, apache 2 gets slammed regularly. also, one of the head kernel devs (morton i think?) commented a while back (2.6.15) that linux was getting too buggy. linux is far from impervious. as said above, the reason linux doesn't get attacked is because of it's relative obscurity. however, iirc there are less flaws (and these are mostly discovered in labs) in linux than windows (with the exception of vista) but it only takes one flaw to "open the floodgates" for exploits. if you want a REALLY secure OS then go for OpenBSD (as they say, 1 remote exploit in 10 years)

[netstrider]

Someone on these forums posted this link before I can't remember whom but it will answer ALL your questions about Linux and Windows security.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/