I'm just tired. On the last post about having Linux at our work, many people that seems to be an IT worker said there have been several issues with Linux that was not easy to manipulate or control like they do with Windows, but I think they just are lazy to find out ways to provide this support. Because Google forces all their workers to use Linux, and they have pretty much control on their OS as any other Windows system.
Linux is a valid system that can be used for work, just as many other companies do.
So my point is, the excuse of "Linux is not ready for workplaces" could be just a lack of knowledge of the IT team and/or a lack of intention to provide to developers the right tools to work.
But it's kind of true in practical experience. Show me one Linux virus that spread and made its way through some network.
I can show you more than i have fingers that have been affecting windows.
When it comes to workplaces, you can expect people to deliberately craft a virus and/or try that break into your system specifically. A lot of the world runs on linux, a lot of hackers try to break in to this world.
For personal use it may be true enough to be fine in practice, but it's a very dangerous thing to believe for a professional setting with probably expensive equipment and valuable data.
Yeah. I know that. But that's in theory. And it's more hacking, not a virus.
If that's really true, it's surely possible to find an example of a virus that did it's thing (spread) and do a bit of damage somewhere. And not just say hypothetically it's true.
I know Linux can be hacked, because I had a webserver hacked. And i see all the logs and the hundreds of login attempts per second and automatic exploits in my logfiles. I have a good idea why most of the Linux boxes get hacked. And all I've ever seen were not updated server software resulting in rootkits. 0% is viruses in my experience. Rest is proper issues and maybe the bad guys have been quicker than you. But it's mostly targeted and rare. And nothing compared to the stuff the windows guys had to deal with during the last year and switch off things until it had been patched properly. We mainly do our updates. And every few years there is a major screwup and you type in a few commands in the terminal to hotfix something. But that's mainly it. And you can't make it about any hypothetical issue. While there are supply chain attacks for example, my mom who is using Linux to write her letters and print forms is unlikely to need to learn about that. I told her she doesn't need antivirus and viruses and trojans are more an academic thing with Linux. She doesn't need to worry. I also talked about targeted attacks and being a valuable target. But that's besides the point here. Hence my question and me wanting to stay on point.
Please just prove me wrong. I'm serious. All I could find are some harmless viruses from 2003 that didn't even spread enough to have reliable numbers. Ransomware that affected 'tens of users'. And you got the easy position. I advocate for Linux on the desktop. And it's impossible to prove something is secure. I always have to go into detail, explain viruses, architecture, package managers etc to get my point across. You got the easy position. All you need is to find one counterexample.
And arguments are always the same. I do the whole talk and then say you don't need antivirus because in real-life there are no viruses. And people ask me 'but what if tomorrow there is one'. And sure. Nobody believes me when I say I've had a quick glance into the future with my crystal ball. But what kind of argument is that? What if I'm struck by lightning on the way home tomorrow if I take the bus instead of the car? I guess I'll just die then. Many people have been under the influence of 'windows-truths' for too long and can't imagine another world. Some people didn't listen to the first part of my talk. And some just want the computer to work and a simple answer. I get all of that. But it doesn't make something true or false.
[Edit: Sorry, had to post this again. I deleted the previous comment by accident instead of editing it what I was trying to do.. And Lemmy doesn't seem to federate deletions that quickly. I'm still learning things here...]
Yeah. I know that. But that's in theory. And it's more hacking, not a virus.
If that's really true, it's surely possible to find an example of a virus that did it's thing (spread) and do a bit of damage somewhere. And not just say hypothetically it's true.
I know Linux can be hacked, because I had a webserver hacked. And i see all the logs and the hundreds of login attempts per second and automatic exploits in my logfiles. I have a good idea why most of the Linux boxes get hacked. And all I've ever seen were not updated server software resulting in rootkits. 0% is viruses in my experience. Rest is proper issues and maybe the bad guys have been quicker than you. But it's mostly targeted and rare. And nothing compared to the stuff the windows guys had to deal with during the last year and switch off things until it had been patched properly. We mainly do our updates. And every few years there is a major screwup and you type in a few commands in the terminal to hotfix something. But that's mainly it. And you can't make it about any hypothetical issue. While there are supply chain attacks for example, my mom who is using Linux to write her letters and print forms is unlikely to need to learn about that. I told her she doesn't need antivirus and viruses and trojans are more an academic thing with Linux. She doesn't need to worry. I also talked about targeted attacks and being a valuable target. But that's besides the point here. Hence my question and me wanting to stay on point.
Please just prove me wrong. I'm serious. All I could find are some harmless viruses from 2003 that didn't even spread enough to have reliable numbers. Ransomware that affected 'tens of users'. And you got the easy position. I advocate for Linux on the desktop. And it's impossible to prove something is secure. I always have to go into detail, explain viruses, architecture, package managers etc to get my point across. You got the easy position. All you need is to find one counterexample.
And arguments are always the same. I do the whole talk and then say you don't need antivirus because in real-life there are no viruses. And people ask me 'but what if tomorrow there is one'. And sure. Nobody believes me when I say I've had a quick glance into the future with my crystal ball. But what kind of argument is that? What if I'm struck by lightning on the way home tomorrow if I take the bus instead of the car? I guess I'll just die then. Many people have been under the influence of 'windows-truths' for too long and can't imagine another world. Some people didn't listen to the first part of my talk. And some just want the computer to work and a simple answer. I get all of that. But it doesn't make something true or false.
Here you go https://www.cynet.com/ransomware/linux-ransomware-attack-anatomy-examples-and-protection/ literally top of the results from googling "Linux ransomware"
Cybersecurity is all about preventative measures. It's extremely irresponsible to go "yeah, it's fine, nothing bad has happened so far!". But even then that's not quite true, since you yourself have written that your servers are being attacked all the time. And privilege escalation exploits are found all the time.
When you are advocating for putting a system in a workplace, you need to do more due diligence and preparation than what you would for a personal system. Linux can be great for security! But you don't just go "yeah it never gets viruses".
Thinking about security in this manner is how all these companies have their vital data leaked all the time.
Edit: another thing, when you hear about companies hacked and all that, how often do they run Windows, and not Linux? Often that information isn't shared, and so we don't really know. But nearly all web infrastructure runs on linux, including a majority of the cloud. I'm sure a significant part of those hacks are targeted at linux systems.
And again, let me clarify, I'm talking about workplaces, companies, not personal use. Because for personal use I do agree that Linux with the defaults for most distributions is plenty safe.
And yet another article containing 0 viruses. And only targeted attacks which we've kind of excluded because it's another topic. I'm kinda halfway willing to count something like 'QNAPCrypt'. But it's mainly the fault of a single manufacturer having bad security in place. And it's not really Linux at fault. Also something like QNAP will most likely affect consumers and small companies. I'm not sure... I'd like to see some actual numbers about how that played out.
I know about security. The main question is always: "What are you trying to protect against?", "What's YOUR attack scenario." And that'll vary a great amount. It's different for companies and consumers. It's different for servers and desktop computers. It's even different for parts of infrastructure of the same company. I know about that. And I happily admit there are other kinds of attacks on Linux infrastructure. Only thing is, they're kinda rare and viruses aren't involved.
Regarding how often companies that get attacked also run Linux: That's true. But you gotta look at the case individually. If Microsoft loses an authentication key that allows access to their cloud and AWS (or something like that). Sure. It's potentially a severe attack on their infrastructure. They have been compromised. And they also run Linux servers. But how does that relate to the existence of Linux viruses?
Yes, they're targeted attacks. That's the point. That's what you will be facing when putting Linux in your workplace. The main threat for workplaces will be targeted attacks.
So saying that putting Linux in your workplace because it has no viruses is irresponsible. Or at the very least it's lying by omission.
The text in the post's image literally says "just set it and forget it".
I think I get it now. You're using the word 'virus' as a synonym for an attack on computers. I'm using the word in the sense of a computer program that replicates on it's own and in practice also spreads and does some kind of damage. I get why we cannot agree. But the distinction has vastly different implications.
I read that quote in the context it was written in. And I'd partly agree. If you're talking with someone who has a small/moderately sized company and they're thinking about renewing their Sophos subscription. Hot-glue the USB-ports and protect their samba-share against being encrypted by some ransomware... You can't lump in highly targeted attacks on the top 5 companies in the world and every hypothetical scenario. Without any regards of statistical likelihood... If you want to condense it into a simple truth (which I think was the main point of that post), it's: There are no Linux viruses. And there probably won't be.
I think this is technically false. But practically true in the context it was written. And for most people anyways. If you want to talk about cybersecurity as a whole, your webserver and 150 PCs for your employers, I wouldn't recommend paying a 14 yo $50 to set it up Linux and fire and forget.
I agree. “just set it and forget it” is just bad, bad advice. I think I know where that comes from. I've seen >10 years old RHEL servers that hadn't been touched for quite some time. And a ridiculous hundreds and hundreds of days of uptime. They're kind of “just set it and forget it”... But... You gotta do it right. Do updates. Have it set up properly and with security in mind. Put in the effort. Lock it down. Don't expose them to the internet. Pay for longterm support and someone backporting patches and have them installed automatically etc.... You can't do it with any other OS (except for BSD and some specialized stuff). But you can't say “set it and forget it”. I agree. That's more than misleading. It's just false.
There's an entire list of them here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
I've read that list. There's not a single name that rings a bell. Which one of those had any consequences in real life and is more than an academic study?
(And besides that: Sure. It's funny to make every program output your name. But it's pretty harmless and not on the same level with viruses that do proper damage to a computer infrastructure. I wouldn't lump all that together. That's not right, either. And misleading.)
Your ignorance on the topic does not make the claim that there are “No viruses” on Linux any less absurd and inaccurate.
You have multiple cyber security experts in this thread telling you that you’re wrong. It is not on us to disprove the claim, or to educate you.
I don't understand. You made the claim Linux viruses exist. Why is it now my job to disprove their existence?
It's like with God, Vishnu, Thor, ... You claim existence, you show me.
If there are that many experts around. Why can't they do more than link a Wikipedia article that doesn't (yet) contain the information I've specifically asked for? Shouldn't they know at least something themselves? At least know 1 name from the worst offender? Why does the other half of experts not know the distinction between virus and other forms of malware? And that it makes a difference here?
I see that people disagree with me. But I seriously doubt that there is a single expert around.
I swear I'm not trolling. If you're an expert, just give me the name. I'll even try to look it up myself and if it's a virus and spread across a few hundred computers around the world and maybe more than 2 or 3 companies and I can find maybe a newspaper article that says it did some harm, I promise I'll accept that and change my opinion. At least tell me you've learned in uni that Linux viruses definitely exist in the wild, but no studies have been done because of X or Y. And we have no numbers. I would think that's very curious because there are so many linux servers out there, but I'd at least have something to work with. (And don't take things out of context.)
The original post made the claim, I merely stated fact that Linux can be vulnerable to viruses like any other OS.
Want a straight forward answer?
https://www.linux.com/training-tutorials/myth-busting-linux-immune-viruses/
A virus is a specific type of malware but for the general public is broadly synonymous with malware. Ask the average user, and the commenter in the OP screenshot, what the difference is without looking it up and they can’t tell you.
A virus doesn’t need to be spread broadly for it to be concerning, impactful or dangerous. Often these attacks are very carefully targeted at the victims.
A vulnerability is generally exploited by a virus to inject code by either modifying memory or files the target program relies on. One such vulnerability was
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/03/linux-has-been-bitten-by-its-most-high-severity-vulnerability-in-years/
With this vulnerability it was possible to modify any file on a Linux device, meaning viruses would be simple to implement and deploy. Many android devices are still vulnerable.
To think that all possible vulnerabilities have been fixed, or are known to linux developers, would be extremely naive.
Furthermore a virus is often targeting a specific application and while OS level controls restrict the avenues of attack it doesn’t prevent flaws being introduced by developers.
You’ve already been given a list of viruses for Linux, if you’re genuinely so concerned with defining them by impact you can look them up. You have the information needed to do this yourself, and it is not my responsibility to educate you, though I do seek to counter misinformation where possible.
Well, the first article pretty much says what I'm saying. In theory there can be viruses. In the real world they have pretty much no effect. They are more a curiosity than something that really exists and has had consequences. It even says you're installing antivirus because of the windows clients, not because there were linux viruses.
The second article also is about a security vulnerability and talking about potential consequences. Not a virus that uses this as means to infect people. Not actual consequences.
We're going in circles. I'm sorry.
And a virus and a vulnerability in some software (or kernel) that can you get hacked are two entirely different things:
So while talking about cybersecurity. Why would I lump all that together and strip the words of their meaning? And in this case on top: One thing is something that actually happened. The other things are just words about something hypethetical. I'm aware you have to protect against potential threats. Nonetheless both things are something different.
Regarding your advice: Yes. I've looked it up. I found no viruses that had any significant real-world impact. Hence me insisting on it. I said in my first comment I want to see impact. Not an academic study. Because context matters. We're talking about someone advertising Linux to an undetermined group of people. These people are concerned with implications for them. If they need to worry. Not if in theory anything can happen. That doesn't help you choose between two options. And we're talking about 'simple truths'. They're kinda always false. But people want to hear them. They want it condensed into one sentence. Because they own a company that manufactures car tires and they don't want to get a 20 minute lecture about computer attack vectors. They want to hear if they need to worry about their Linux server. Is it safe or not, do I need to pay someone to install Sophos? And be done with it.
You're twisting my words so they lose meaning. And change the context. And then posting articles about something related but not the thing.
So you found viruses, which debunks the claim in the OP, yet you remain skeptical they exist.
We're done here.
Please read my first few comments. I've talked about it and that's not what I said. I have found no viruses conforming to what I've clarified in my very first comment. I've also explained why it's important to differentiate. I have found things alike. But never the thing. If you twist my words enough and change the context, it would almost seem like I'm contradicting myself, yes. But you're the one twisting things around until you're right.
And why are you just now talking about that? Nearly every single comment of me starts right with a sentence that clarifies what I mean?
Frankly I don't care about whatever "metrics" you have made up to justify your ignorance.
Actually I have a better idea, please contact Linus Torvalds on Mastodon with your opinion that there aren't any viruses on Linux.
I will happily eat some popcorn while reading your eviceration.
For the record: I'm not the one changing the meaning of the word. I use it like in the definition. You're the one extending the meaning arbitrarily.
I think I'll just wait and see if some expert comes along and gives me my single example. If that doesn't happen I'm going to stick to my opinion: They exist in theory, but not in practice. And vulnerabilities and rootkits exist, but a vulnerability isn't automatically called a virus because those are different things.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-manual/ch08s08.en.html
To end with some more friendly words: I'm pretty sure some people are confusing the words 'malware' and 'virus'. Malware is the umbrella term. I've already admitted there is malware. For example the Mirai worm i think had affected hundreds of thousands of IoT devices (speaking of fire and forget embedded linux). And I've seen wordpress plugins with vulnerabilities and actual rootkits on webservers myself, as I told earlier. But I've also said in this context the distinction matters.