4 ms·
but he says, only because it is not much common, and different distros are too diverse to justify an "investment"
by diminish 14y ago
but he says, only because it is not much common, and different distros are too diverse to justify an "investment"
- azakai 14y agoYes, the reasons are not very impressive ones, but nonetheless.
- da_n 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
- tetha 14y agoI don't see the relevance. Linux is no good target, because there are not many linux boxes compared to windows/mac and because 100 linux boxes might require 10 different ways to attack them, while 100 windows boxes might require 1 or 2. There is nothing obscure here, just diversity.
- holri 14y agoDiversity is always a good tacit in defeating pest. Learn from nature / biology. Monocultures are unstable and have to be superficially stabilized with great effort.
- diminish 14y agosimilarly the guy says, he creates variations of the code in order to avoid detection. a world where hunter and the hunt all diversify.
- jiggy2011 14y agoSurely Linux would be a good target? There are hundreds of thousands of Linux servers out there and they will have a lot of bandwidth / CPU etc.
- alxv 14y agoBut how do you get the malware on the servers? Most malware spread by tricking unsophisticated users into install them. It is much harder to trick a system administrator to so. Exploiting a vulnerable public facing service is the alternative. However, that option is out of reach to all but the most dedicated attackers, assuming you keep the system updated.