4 ms·

This exists because: 1. When Linux was "coming of age" (around the turn of the millennium), Windows security was really bad. 2. At the same time, there were f

This exists because: 1. When Linux was "coming of age" (around the turn of the millennium), Windows security was really bad. 2. At the same time, there were far more Windows machines than Linux 3. #1 and #2 together made Windows such an attractive target, that exploits for Linux were less of a thing.

rhet0rica 1y ago
Don't forget: 4. Poor binary compatibility made it seem like worms were impossible, and twenty years ago, the most dangerous cyberattacks were 'pranks' designed to hose as many PCs as possible
- whizzter 1y ago
  In Linux? No, C/C++-compiled binaries with dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing,etc but you could always compiled things statically. "not ok" by LGPL licence so an issue for games,etc that wanted closed source so people talked about it, but a malicious worm creator could definitely go there since they probably wouldn't care about (L)GPL compliance (remember Linus has always been very hard on patches not breaking userspace ABI's).
  - rhet0rica 1y ago
    Yeah. Emphasis on the "seem" part. A false sense of security brought on by, "If binary artifacts for package _foo_ can't be ported between distros, what chance do worms have?" plus the even older memory that the Morris worm had been designed around (and limited to) certain target platforms and architectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
  - bobmcnamara 1y ago
    > dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing This was annoying for exploit authors as well. Like an early form of ASLR.
rfoo 1y ago
I thought when people say "Linux security is a myth" they were comparing it to FreeBSD / OpenBSD. So it's revealing that most are comparing Linux to Windows here.
- aidenn0 1y ago
  Also, Microsoft was pushing hard into the workstation and server market in the late '90s. I remember an ad that showed someone who had painted themselves into a corner with paint the shade of purple that Sun used in its branding with the slogan something like "we have the way out."

rhet0rica 1y ago

Don't forget: 4. Poor binary compatibility made it seem like worms were impossible, and twenty years ago, the most dangerous cyberattacks were 'pranks' designed to hose as many PCs as possible

whizzter 1y ago
In Linux? No, C/C++-compiled binaries with dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing,etc but you could always compiled things statically. "not ok" by LGPL licence so an issue for games,etc that wanted closed source so people talked about it, but a malicious worm creator could definitely go there since they probably wouldn't care about (L)GPL compliance (remember Linus has always been very hard on patches not breaking userspace ABI's).
- rhet0rica 1y ago
  Yeah. Emphasis on the "seem" part. A false sense of security brought on by, "If binary artifacts for package _foo_ can't be ported between distros, what chance do worms have?" plus the even older memory that the Morris worm had been designed around (and limited to) certain target platforms and architectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm
- bobmcnamara 1y ago
  > dynamic linking often had issues due to glibc versions diffing This was annoying for exploit authors as well. Like an early form of ASLR.

rfoo 1y ago

I thought when people say "Linux security is a myth" they were comparing it to FreeBSD / OpenBSD. So it's revealing that most are comparing Linux to Windows here.

aidenn0 1y ago
Also, Microsoft was pushing hard into the workstation and server market in the late '90s. I remember an ad that showed someone who had painted themselves into a corner with paint the shade of purple that Sun used in its branding with the slogan something like "we have the way out."