3 ms·

"Why bother write a malware that has got ... an order of magnitude less chances to spread?" That's plain wrong. Read Rick Moen takes on the subject here: http:

• shin_lao 16y ago
  I don't know this Mr. Moen, but the fallacy may not be where he believes it is. When writing an exploit you need to know the kernel, libc and apache version to make your buffer overflow work, because memory layout is important - if it's a buffer overflow. There are so many apache builds, that makes things difficult for a worm (but not for a targeted exploit). Not impossible, but more difficult. On Windows, the build is uniform. Additionally, servers are less interesting targets since they are more monitored and operated by administrators. If your plan is to have as many zombies as possible, not a good idea. Last but not least, a lot of virii and trojans use mail and the web as a channel. AFAIK you don't read mails and visit web pages on servers. If the underlying argument is that there are less virii on Linux because it's more secure than Windows, this is wrong. It's difficult to "measure" security and I really don't want to have a Linux vs Windows debate, but Windows cannot be considered as an insecure operating system anymore. User's behavior on the other hand, is still problematic.