What's the truth about malware in Linux? Is Linux more immune to typical viruses - which these days take the form of mass-spammed crapware and rogue antiviruses targeting grandmothers and tech illiterates? Aside from slightly better fundamental security of a Unix filesystem, theres nothing in Linux that makes it inherently virus-resistant. A virus is just a program like any other. The best hope you have is that kernel code is scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb several thousands of times per day. Linux malware is more likely to have specific targets than the low hanging fruit scams targeting Windows.
What says /g/ on the "Linux doesn't get viruses because nobody uses Linux" meme?
Linux doesn't get viruses not because it can't but because there's an intelligence requirement for using it and if you're making a virus you're not going after people smart enough to avoid it
>install this piece of shit program by'curl my.shittyprogram.com/install.sh | sh'
>>53747868
>What says /g/ on the "Linux doesn't get viruses because nobody uses Linux" meme?
Linux has less than 2% of the desktop marketshare. Apple Mac has about 6-7% and gets very few viruses despite vulnerabilities headlining here every day.
If any part of Linux is at risk it's the poorly-supported embedded versions, which are legion.
>>53747868
>What says /g/ on the "Linux doesn't get viruses because nobody uses Linux" meme?
It's not so much a meme as those that say this hardly realise that viruses are but a small part of malware. Just like Windows, GNU/Linux and Mac are also susceptible to other types of malware and attacks, but it's often overlooked, and that's really fair. It's true that there aren't many viruses, if at all, for Linux and Mac, but there are a great many more digital threats out there that just viruses.
I will say that the Linux kernel can be hardened to thwart many remote code executions due to buffer overflow mitigations and such, but I believe Windows has ASLR by default, right? I don't use Windows, but perhaps someone who does can acknowledge this.
> Linux doesn't get viruses because nobody uses Linux
It's true. Android have a Linux core and there's tons of viruses for it.
>>53747868
There are fewer Linux users and Linux users are generally more competent with computers than windows users. Why spend time and money on developing a virus for a really small percentage of users who are also unlikely to fall for it when you can develop a virus for a really large chunk of users of which a large number are easily fooled?
>>53747868
leave your ssh open to the internet and set your root password to 123456
you'll find out
I have a "fix" for certain distros and a blog page that gets so many people to install my rootkit. linux isn't secure at all because of the false sense of security. obscurity isn't security open sores.
>>53748085
>>53748198
>>>53747868 (OP)
>leave your ssh open to the internet and set your root password to 123456
>you'll find out
That's not a virus. That's PEBKAC.
Reminder.
>>53748240
not arch I hope
>>53748276
maybe :)
maybe not :^)
>>53748268
As in proprietary software is inherently malware.
>>53747868
Well, nowdays whether an OS is resistant to viruses/malware depends more on the user/administrator than on the OS itself. So unless you have enabled a way to remotely login to your machine without any bruteforce prevention then the most likely way to infect your PC is to trick you into doing it yourself.
That is unless you're using Adobe software ( https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-vendor-cvssscore-distribution.php ). If you're using Flash then may whatever diety you believe in have mercy on your soul, as this piece of turd is perhaps the most dangerous piece of software with the largest install base ( https://www.cvedetails.com/product/6761/Adobe-Flash-Player.html?vendor_id=53 )
