4 ms·
I can't refute your argument any more than you can prove it to be true which is why I said I'll have to wait for the apocalyptic user to arrive. But if you can
by murrayb 17y ago
I can't refute your argument any more than you can prove it to be true which is why I said I'll have to wait for the apocalyptic user to arrive. But if you can demonstrate some Linux malware (trivial or otherwise) it would add a lot of weight to your argument :)
- tptacek 17y agoYou're serious? It's not enough just to point you to Bugtraq?
- duskwuff 17y agoExploits aren't malware. Not in the sense we're talking about here, at least.
- tptacek 17y agoWhat's your point? Malware is enabled by vulnerabilities. Nobody is arguing that Linux has lots of malware. Linux is safer than Windows. But it's not more secure.
- duskwuff 17y ago> Malware is enabled by vulnerabilities. I'm not so sure about that. Some malware installs itself by exploiting vulnerabilities. (Not all of it, though - there's plenty of Windows malware that gets installed by social-engineering the user.) But, in order to stay installed, most malware depends on other properties of the OS to conceal itself and stay installed. Windows makes this much easier for a programmer than Linux does.
- tptacek 17y agoI know that a lot of people say this, but I don't know a single professional security practitioner who --- when push comes to shove --- actually believes it. I'm not being glib or dismissive, but I'm also not going to argue the point anymore.