A weblog on O'Reilly suggests that to solve plague of Windows worms, users should install Linux. Might seem like a great idea today but is no solution. The fact is, currently, there aren't a lot of worms for Linux: just a piddly 1% (August 2003) of all desktops run Linux and hence it does not attract the attention of worm writers (script kiddies, 3lee7 haxors, etc.). Windows runs on 92% of the machines on the net and hence is a different story. One could argue that due to poor coding practices Windows machines are inherently vulnerable. As soon as the number tilts in Linux's favor I am certain that the worm writers will adapt. From personal experience I can say that Linux has its share of vulnerabilities: I have been attacked twice successfully on my Cobalt Raq which ran Linux. I still run Linux but now I try to keep up-to-date with patches.
The admonition of the O'Reilly weblogger reminds me of those early days of NT (1994). An eager bright-eyed person I was working with suggested to everyone that they should run NT (version 3.5 in those days) because it was immune to viruses that affected Windows 3.1 (the dominant operating system at that time). If you remember viruses used to spread through exchanged floppy disks & games. He believed that the new operating system was so secure that viruses had no chance against it. It was a while till the virus writers moved on Windows NT. The fact is that a virus runs under the context of the user and if a user can delete files so can the virus.
9:19:34 PM 
|
