[SATLUG] Scarry stuff...How to write a linux virus in 5 easy steps
geofff at w5omr.shacknet.nu
Tue Feb 24 14:23:20 CST 2009
>> As Linux grabs more market share on the home desktop, its only natural,
>> a matter of time, before the bad guys start (if they haven't already)
>> writing exploits for it
> I disagree to some degree. The reason that windows has been so problematic is
> not JUST because it's the biggest tartget.. but because it's SOOOOOO
> homogeneous. It's cookie cutter.. A computer monoculture, if you will.
> Take this virus/target-culture model into nature. It's just like a giant
> domesticated animal farm. What happens in nature when you have a giant
> monoculture (cows, banans, etc)? One ravenous disease comes along and wipes
> them all out. So what even if you keep standing new animals back up
> (reinstalling.. new models, etc).. The same monoculture problem exists and
> viruses feed on monocultures.
> This is why nature has differing species, breeds, and strains. In two words..
> biological diversity. This is also why I believe that Windows will always be
> the weaker OS "health wise" and why I believe Linux will never be as hard hit
> with viri as Windows. Linux is a chaotic, heterogeneous mix of distros,
> desktops and packages.. always changing. No virus can assume that all Linux
> desktop is running Thunderbird.. or Kmail, Mutt or Evolution. I guess a
> virus writer /could/ include vector-checks for the most common Linux mail
> clients out there.. but you still have all the distro differences, seLinux,
> iptables, filesystem differences, etc.. And that's a huge waste of energy
> when the virus-yummy monoculture of Windows+Outlook is such a more attractive
> target. Such an easier herd to own. :)
> Some say that there's safety in numbers...
> With regards to virus defense, this is not the case...
> But even more importantly, I say the real safety is in diversity.
Tom, I grabbed your reply and sent it to a friend who is in the computer
I thought you'd be interested in his reply. (after I cleaned up some
spelling errors... leaving the grammar as is - fair warning)
> He is absolutly correct on all counts. The stupid american people are
> to blame. How many home made cars or specialty equipment such as a
> steering stick instead of a wheel do you see? That may be a bad
> example, but the main thing here is that americans want all things to
> operate the same and they don't want to learn. They will only buy big
> brand names because they feel that anything else is inferior or has
> very little support because they don't know what makes it tick nor
> will they learn it, therefore they can't fix it. PC's only became
> prominent when a manufactureres such as IBM, Compaq, or Apple started
> bundling the OS with the equipment because americans in general are
> too stupid to separate the two things in thier mind. Most can't even
> program the clock on the VCR let alone figure out how to hook it up.
> Now days people or totally confused about who to call for service.
> In the buisness world, the telephones and wiring in your office are
> installed by vender1 and the internet service is vender2 and the
> telephone service to the building is vender3. ATT only wants to
> provide a connection to the DMARK and their work is done. This is
> really confussing the general public because they are accustom to the
> telephone company providing the service lines all the way to the
> telephone and the telephone once belonged to the telephone company.
> */Of course we "the venders" want to keep the people spoiled in this
> maner because providing service to the consumer is where we make our
That's from the other end of the spectrum... this, too, is why they are
closing the store-front to the public, and staying with servicing their
corporate clientel. Dealing with the general public the last 20 years
has taken it's toll. (That, and they'll save 2/3'rds of their current
More information about the SATLUG