Hey Est,
I'm not trying to argue which is more likely to be infected with a worm or virus, just disputing the original misleading quote. (first quote of my last message). If you'd like I can respond to your individual points, but I don't really think they are relevant (to what I was arguing..). If you'd like you can email me if you want to discuss this more..
Well, I do have a few minutes so, I will respond.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I think (I'm no expert) that it's not a safe assumption to make that if Linux were as popular as Windows, then it would have just as many faults (on all levels).
I don't think anyone quoted was saying that, they said it will become more popular as a target.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Isn't it logical to think that if someone was really trying to raise a lot of ####, that instead of going for numbers, they'd go for the "savvy"
No, I don't think it is logical at all. Many virus writers appear to have commercial interests (ie spam drones), and my impression is that they want to spread as far as possible for fame or whatever. If they didn't want their virus to spread, they wouldn't have written it. I don't think they want to make a few people upset, I think they want their virus/worm to spread as far as possible, and further whatever their goals are.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, Windows is such a popular target because it is easy to crack, there are SO many exploits, there are many cases where a virus was written not to piss people off, but to discredit Windows.
Don't you think the fact that is is on an estimated 90% of desktops has also something to do with the prevalance of viruses and worms designed for Windows? BeOS had an even worse security model than Windows, and it wasn't a big virus or worm target, either. One thing to note, is that Windows actually has a much more finer grained security model than the standard Unix permissions system. Read up on ACLs if you'd like to learn more. These have been around since the inception of NT (
http://world.std.com/~jimf/papers/nt-security)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]For example, if Windows wasn't so easy to break in to, we wouldn't have so many script kiddies, would we?
Ok, this question is almost too silly to address. Would we still have stupid people doing stupid things if Windows did not have as many security problems you suppose it does? I would say yes.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, Windows is such a popular target because it is easy to crack, there are SO many exploits, there are many cases where a virus was written not to piss people off, but to discredit Windows.
You are stating your assumptions as facts. On a side note, how is it easy to crack? Do you mean that it is easy because problems are discovered frequently? Or because there are current vulnerabilties that you can exploit now? Read up, every operating system has them:
http://linuxsecurity.com/ . My opinion on why Windows has many security problems is that because most users run as an Administrator instead of as a limited user account. Many Windows applications function poorly in a mulit-user environment (ie without admin privs), which further discourages users. This, combined, with Windows' popularity and near-ridiculous cross-compatability is what makes it such an attractive target. Fortunately, there are all things that can (and I believe will) change in the future. Check out the XP SP2 RC to see some of the interesting changes in security, designed to make it easier for the average user.
Anyway, we're probably boring other people in the forums (not to mention further re-inforcing my geeky image), so feel free to email if you want to say more. public at brokenwatch.net
See ya
Pat