Why do linux systems have fewer viruses?

Why do linux systems have fewer viruses?

By fire555fire

Linux is an operating system with strong self-development. For example, although it is the same as the five cores of the red flag, the preference and needs of each user are different, therefore, different user management methods, permission settings, software packages, software compilation commands, and software running modes may be formed under it, the environment has almost no chance to have two identical LINUX systems, eliminating the virus breeding condition.

However, for compatibility considerations, Windows has completed setting all applications on behalf of users, the user only needs to choose not to install the operating system, whether or not to execute the program, and not to execute the command, resulting in almost all computer users operating environment twins, creates an environment for virus survival.

As we all know, viruses are nothing more than a program. virus occurrence and transmission only take effect when a set condition is met. Windows has countless environmental identities, virus makers can attack thousands of computers by writing a program in one mode to maximize efficiency.

The Linux user environment is different. A virus program written by the virus manufacturer may only be useful to a single user's system, but on other users' computers, if the same virus environment is not met, the virus will not be able to work, and the attack efficiency will not be achieved.

Over time, virus makers will lose interest in Linux, because writing a virus program is not easy.

Microsoft has considered providing convenience for computer users and making it easier for computer users to use their computers to expand their sales targets, it also brings security risks to those Windows that are easy to use. Although Linux is inconvenient to use, you often need to compile your own software packages, understanding the differences in compilation brings security to each user.

By: SuperHacker

In Linux, because of the strict power system, writing viruses is much more difficult than Windows. Therefore, many novice virus makers are excluded from virus makers. Because the Open Source of the system's core components has caused Linux to be monitored by global hackers, once a vulnerability is discovered, a corresponding solution will appear immediately, which is much faster than the virus targeting the corresponding vulnerability. Microsoft is far from doing this, plus the reasons described in fire555fire. This makes the spread of Linux viruses far slower than death. The mortality rate is higher than the birth rate. Naturally, there is only one way to perish.

Author: sunflower section 3

There may be many people who hold that the Linux virus is rare because Linux is not as popular as Windows. In fact, such ideas have been refuted. One of the most powerful arguments is: if a virus writer writes a Windows virus because of the large number of Windows users, most servers on the Internet are based on Unix/Linux. Is it more destructive to attack these servers?

To infect executable files with a binary Linux virus, these executable files must be writable to users who start the virus. This is usually not the case. Generally, the program is owned by the root user, and the user runs the program through a non-privileged account. Moreover, the less experienced the user, the less likely the user has executable files. Therefore, the more you do not understand this dangerous user's home directory, the less suitable for virus reproduction.

Even if the virus successfully infected a program owned by the user, the task that it further spreads will be very difficult due to the limited permissions of the user (of course, this argument may not apply to new Linux users running a single-user system. Such users may be careless with the root account ).

Linux network programs are built conservatively, and there is no advanced macro tool that can make the current Windows virus so quickly spread. This is not an inherent feature of Linux; it is only a reflection of the differences between the two user bases and the successful products in these two markets. The experience learned by observing these issues will also be used in future Linux products.

Linux applications and system software are almost all open-source. This has two impacts on viruses. First, the virus is hard to hide in the middle of open-source code. Second, for viruses that only have binary data, a new compilation and installation will cut off the virus as a major transmission path. Although the Linux publisher also provides a large number of binary software packages, most users download these software packages from the reliable software warehouse provided by the publisher. Most of these software packages have md5 verification mechanisms and are highly secure.

Each of these obstacles is an important obstacle to the successful spread of viruses. However, when we put them together for consideration, the basic problems emerge.

A computer virus, like a biological virus, must spread at a rate higher than its death rate. The obstacle mentioned above effectively reduces the breeding speed of Linux viruses. If its reproduction rate falls below the threshold required to replace the original population, the virus's fate is doomed from the very beginning-even before potential victims are aware of them.

We didn't see a really crazy spread of Linux viruses, because none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment provided by Linux. The existing Linux virus is only technically curious. The reality is that there is no active Linux virus.

Of course, this does not mean that Linux viruses will never become popular. However, it does mean that a successful Linux virus must be well developed and innovated to survive an unsuitable Linux ecosystem.