What are the causes of fewer viruses in Linux systems

Perhaps many people hold the view that the Linux virus is less because Linux is not as popular as Windows, in fact, this view has been refuted before, one of the most powerful argument is: If the writer of the virus write Windows virus because of Windows users more and therefore destructive, So most servers on the Internet are based on Unix/linux, and attacking these servers is not destructive?

For a binary Linux virus, to infect executables, these executables must be writable by the user who started the virus. And that's not usually the case. The reality is that the program is owned by Root and the user runs through an unprivileged account. Moreover, the less experienced the user, the more likely he is to have the executable file. Therefore, the less aware of this risk of the user's home directory is not suitable for virus reproduction.

Even if the virus succeeds in infecting a program owned by this user, it will be difficult to further propagate the task because of the limited user rights (of course, this argument may not apply to new Linux novices running Single-user systems.) Such users may be more careless with the root account.

Linux Web programs are built conservatively and do not have the potential for advanced macro tools that allow Windows viruses to spread so quickly. This is not an intrinsic feature of Linux; it is simply the difference between the two user bases and the different reactions to the successful products in both markets. The lessons learned by looking at these problems will also be used in future Linux products.

Linux application software and system software are almost open source. This has two effects on the virus. First, the virus is hard to hide in the open source code. Second, for only binary viruses, a new compile installation truncates the virus's main route of transmission. Although Linux publishers also offer a large number of binary packages, most users download these packages from a reliable repository of software offered by publishers, most of which have MD5 authentication mechanisms and are highly secure.

Each of these obstacles is an important impediment to the successful spread of the virus. But when they are taken together, the basic questions emerge.

A computer virus, like a biological virus, must reproduce faster than its death (if it is destroyed) to spread it. The above mentioned obstacles effectively reduce the rate at which Linux viruses reproduce. If its breeding rate drops below the threshold needed to replace the original population, the virus's doom is doomed from the start-even before the potential victim realizes it.

We don't see a real Linux virus spreading wildly because none of the Linux viruses in existence can thrive in a hostile environment provided by Linux. The current Linux virus is just a technical curiosity; the reality is that there is no Linux virus that can be kept alive.

Of course, this does not mean that there will never be a Linux virus that can be popular. It does, however, mean that a successful Linux virus must be crafted and innovative to survive in an unsuitable Linux ecosystem.