virus writing!!!!

[pZargs]

I just read the post on windows bashing and linux loving which I found to be quite informative. My question is (and I have only read about it but)is it true that most virus writers
focus on windows and not linux and, your opinions why?

And I ask this becuase I went to a security conference in michigan and some people had brought notebooks (they were macs. ) but the host of the show happened to say something to them for bringing them and they were like "Oh yea macs are great becuase you never have to worry about virus's and hackers". And I know better , but they were bashing pc's as well and I was thinking to my self "ummm shut up ya noobs"..but all of your thoughts are welcome.

I am a fan of both and many others I personally like to learn and anything new is challenge!!!

[nihil]

Sounds like a fair and balanced question. My feelings are:

1. No OS or kit is that much more secure than any other.........it is the understanding of the operator (owner/administrator) that matters.

2. If 99% of the population drive yellow cars, yellow cars will be involved in the most accidents (fundamental statistics?)

3. If you think that MACs are "immune" you are a "Richard Cranium Esquire"...........this is a family forum so you will have to work that out for yourself ...........I do not mean "you" personally of course!!!

I have an Acorn machine................runs the RISC OS..................I could make irrefutable comments as to how crap *nix and MAC boxes are by comparison...............but only because there isn't anyone out there writing exploits and viruses for them anymore?

Cheers

[MrLinus]

Thread moved from General Chit Chat to AntiVirus Security (since this seems like a good discussion for here).

Macs get viruses as well albeit a lot less than Windows. Windows platforms still remain supreme as an OS that has viruses written for it. I suspect it may be because of some of the things that MS does that viruses writers can take advantage of (integration of Email, web and other programs into the OS itself). It's also probably because they are the most common OS and most commonly used.

That said, there are viruses that do exist for Linux. And to assume that the number of linux viruses won't grow is a poor assumption. As linux distros become more common place I expect that we may see some macro viruses at some point (perhaps?) for Open Office and other apps.

That's just my Point of View however.

[R0n1n]

nihil, which acorn are you using? I used to use one of those a long time ago, even then it was a great piece of kit.

More and more Linux viruses are appearing, and this will no doubt conitnue. As for MACs, I guess the fact they are still predominantley a desktop OS is keeping them out fo the spotlight a bit, although as the X servers seem to be gaining in popularity it is only time before attention shifts to them.

[moxnix]

Well if your a scriptkiddie and looking to boost your reputation as the big bad haxor....you wouldn't want to shoot at a target you might miss, so you take aim at the largest, brightest target you can find. As the other os's get bigger and brighter, they to will start becoming targets of choice.

[Cybr1d]

but...with all that said, the MAC panther X OS still remains virus-less throughout its two years of existence.

[MrLinus]

with all that said, the MAC panther X OS still remains virus-less throughout its two years of existence.

give it time...

[|The|Specialist]

Originally posted here by pZargs
I just read the post on windows bashing and linux loving which I found to be quite informative. My question is (and I have only read about it but)is it true that most virus writers
focus on windows and not linux and, your opinions why?

I dissagree with you MsM, Face it its all done because of the numbers. Mass mailing wouldn't work good... you could maybe take advanage of file shareing on a *nix server and possably hit a few *nix boxes that are on a small network but it wouldn't travel very far outside of that and its nothing compaired to what you'd might find laying around in kazaa.

[lessthanzero]

I find myself agreeing with The Specialist...

It boils down to simple efficacy and actually a bit of evolution as well. One cannot help but draw parallels to biology when talking about virii/worms, so here goes...

1. efficacy. if object (virus or worm, doesn't matter) A can infect x hosts yet object B can infect y hosts, and y > x, which do you think is going to be the most effective? We have to confine our definition of effective to the context of the 'object's' survival and replication.

2. evolution. this is really where biology comes into play imho. What we're actually examining here is a parasite-host relationship, which in terms of evolution can be loosely analogized to a predator-prey relationship. Meaning, as the host changes the parasite evolves in order to remain in the niche it has dug out for itself.

So, you're likely saying "but <0, digital virii/worms aren't biological organisms you dolt!"...

I'd proffer for discussion this repsonse: are you positive?

Let me explain...

effecacy and evolution come into play b/c although the instrument isn't carbon-based, the instrument maker is...i.e., the virus-worm creator. Being a higher-functioning organism, we have a great propensity to personify the non-biological objects around us. We want our virii to be successful, to be effective in terms of their survival and replication. We want our virii to be immortal, so we evolve/change/manipulate them to ensure that as their intended hosts change our creations will still enjoy high rates of effecacy.

In conclusion, i say if it quacks, if it waddles, if it s@#ts all over the place, well then it is a duck, no? And i look upon the slew of modern virii/worms and i see efficacy. I see evolution. Therefore, I see digital life....


Cheers,
<0

*edited for sp correction

[moxnix]

lessthanzero, the spelling of the word is 'efficacy', not 'effecacy'. And I am really being picky, but I didn't know the meaning of the word and had to look it up.

efficacy

\Ef"fi*ca*cy\, n. [L. efficacia, fr. efficax. See Efficacious.] Power to produce effects; operation or energy of an agent or force; production of the effect intended; as, the efficacy of medicine in counteracting disease; the efficacy of prayer. ``Of noxious efficacy.'' --Milton.

Syn: Virtue; force; energy; potency; efficiency.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

efficacy

n : capacity or power to produce a desired effect [syn: efficaciousness] [ant: inefficacy]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University