6 ms·

No, Linux is not immune: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/web-host-agrees-to-pay-1m-after-its-hit-by-linux-targeting-ransomware/ https://a

• yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  In an article from late 2017: > kernel 2.6.24.2, which was compiled back in 2008. Next you'll tell us XP is vulnerable. Like, Linux isn't 100% immune, but it has a head start.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Well, wasn't this attack all about unpatched XPs? :P.
  • cm2187 9y ago
    Linux had its fair share of major vulnerabilities. Starting with heartbleed.
    • lmm 9y ago
      Heartbleed was a bug in OpenSSL code running on any platform, including Windows.
      • cm2187 9y ago
        IIS doesn't use OpenSSL. It mostly affected linux boxes.
        • lmm 9y ago
          Sure, because most people using e.g. Apache run Linux, but it doesn't make sense to count it as a "linux bug" any more than it makes sense to count e.g. Ruby bugs as Linux bugs, or .net CLR bugs as Windows bugs.
    • hawski 9y ago
      Heartbleed was not a Linux issue per se. It was OpenSSL issue, which is used also on Windows.
• v_lisivka 9y ago
  Rule of thumb says that it's ok to have 20 windows servers per 1 admin, or 2000 Linux servers per 1 admin. Linux is cheaper.
• sneak 9y ago
  Nothing’s immune. That doesn’t mean it’s smart running the #1 (by a huge margin) malware target OS.
  • colejohnson66 9y ago
    Saying you should use Linux because it’s not the #1 malware target sounds like security through obscurity to me.
    • kelnos 9y ago
      There's nothing wrong with security through obscurity, as long as it is merely one part in a defense-in-depth strategy, and can help you on occasion when other defenses fail in unexpected ways.
    • sneak 9y ago
      Who said that?