A history of viruses on Linux

We recently gave you a brief history of viruses on the Mac and as requested by a user we wanted to give you a history of viruses on Linux. Given the tight security integrated into Linux, it is difficult to take advantage of a vulnerability on the computer, but some programmers have found ways around the security measures. There are several free options for anti-virus on Linux that you really should use, even if it isn't always running - a weekly or monthly scan doesn't hurt. Free anti-virus solutions include: ClamAV, AVG, Avast and F-Prot.

1996:
The cracker group VLAD wrote the first Linux virus named Staog. The virus took advantage of a flaw in the Kernel that allowed it to stay resident on the machine and wait for a binary file to be executed. Once executed the virus would attach itself to that file. Shortly after the virus was discovered the flaw was fixed and the virus quickly became extinct. VLAD was also responsible for writing the first known virus for Windows 95, Boza.

1997:
The Bliss computer virus made its way out into the wild. The virus would attach itself to executables on the system and prevent them from running. A user had to have root access for the virus to be affected, and to this day Debian lists itself as still being vulnerable to this virus. The threat to Debian is minimal though as users do not typically run as root. 

1999:
No significant viruses were reported this year but oddly enough a hoax message went around stating there was a virus that was threatening to install Linux on your computer. At the time the Melissa virus was ravaging PCs worldwide and on April 1, 1999 (April Fools Day) a message went out warning that a virus named Tuxissa was running about secretly installing Linux on unsuspecting computers. 

2000:
A rather harmless virus, Virus.Linux.Winter.341, showed up and inserted itself into ELF files; ELF files are executable Linux files. The virus was very small, only 341 bytes, and would insert LoTek by Wintermute into the Notes section of an ELF file. The virus was also supposed to change the computer name to Wintermute but never gained control of a machine to effect the change. 

2001:
This was an eventful year for Linux viruses; the first was the ZipWorm, a harmless virus that would simply attach itself to any zip files located in the same directory it was executed in. Next was the Satyr virus which was also a harmless virus, it would simply attach itself to ELF files adding the string unix.satyr version 1.0 (c)oded jan-2001 by Shitdown [MIONS], http://shitdown.sf.**(edited as URL causes Avast to block page). There was also a virus released called Ramen which would replace index.html files with their own version displaying Ramen Crew at the top and a package of Ramen Noodles at the bottom. Later a worm by the name of Cheese came out that actually closed the backdoors created by the Ramen virus. There were several other viruses released this year that were relatively harmless. 

2002:
A vulnerability in Apache led to the creation and spread of the Mighty worm. The worm would exploit a vulnerability in Apache's SSL interface, then infect the unsuspecting victims computer. Once on the computer it would create a secret connection to an IRC server and join a channel to wait for commands to be sent to it. 

2003:
Another harmless virus showed up, it was called the Rike virus. The virus, which was written in assembly language, would attach it self to an ELF file. Once attached it would expand the space the file required and write RIKE into that free space. 

2004:
Similar to the virus from the previous year, the Binom virus would simply expand the size of the file and write the string [ Cyneox/DCA in to the free space. The virus was spread by executing an infected file. 

2005:
The Lupper worm began spreading to vulnerable Linux web servers. The worm would hit a web server looking for a specific URL, then it would attempt to exploit a vulnerable PHP/CGI script. If the server then allowed remote shell command execution and file downloads, it would become infected and begin searching for another server to infect. 

2006:
A variant of the Mighty worm from 2002 named Kaiten was born. It would open a connection to an IRC channel and wait for commands to be sent and executed. 

2007:
An exploit in OpenOffice led to the spread of a virus named BadBunny. This virus would infect Windows, Mac and Linux machines. The virus creates a file called badbunny.py as an XChat script and creates badbunny.pl, a Perl virus infecting other Perl files. There was also a trojan horse released by the name of Rexob. Once on the machine, it would open a backdoor allowing remote code execution. 

2009:
A website for GNOME users to download screensavers and other pieces of eye-candy unknowingly hosted a malicious screen saver called WaterFall. Once installed on the machine it would open up a backdoor that when executed would cause the machine to assist in a distributed denial of service attack (DDOS). The DDOS attack was very specific and targeted a specific website, MMOwned.com. 

2010:
The koobface virus, a virus that spreads through social networking sites targets Windows, Mac and, in a more recent variant, Linux computers. Once infected, the virus attempts to gather login information for FTP and social networking sites. Once your password has been compromised the virus will send an infected message to all of your friends in your social network. 

This is by no means a complete list of Linux viruses but it does cover the major ones. It also points out that most of the viruses found on Linux are fairly harmless. That doesn't mean they don't exist though. Be sure to keep an eye on what your downloading and where you're going on the Internet and you will most likely stay virus free. An occasional virus scan wouldn't hurt either. 

Sources:

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Homeland Security seizes over 70 domains

Next Story

Apple to expand their campus

99 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You can't have a list of viruses with RISC as there arn't any.
The OS is stored on ROM and/or EPROM and not on a read/write hard disc drive.
Wish Windows, MAC, Liunx etc was on a ROM.

"Hmm... when I think about it, I'll say, the 2003...2010 section would be empty."

because there already millions of viruses in windows and its mutations (variant). My windows friends are still getting infected in 2010 and will keep getting them for years to come. they always keep calling me to help fix their machines, but some have been smarter and decided to install linux instead to get a break.

someone even told me this related with the virus/malware situation on windows: "is horrible, is like my computer was infected with HIV/aids, you need to constantly give it tons of treatments or it will die on you. I had enough"

in linux i never had to use an antivirus , because linux was made with security in mind from the start. Even if there is a virus out there, none can do any real harm.

i sleep very good at night, not like most windows users thinking about the antivirus/spyware detector all day, even browsing facebook many get infected and stay infected without the antivirus detecting anything.

i would never do sensible, banking or money related in windows and risk getting lots of my data stolen again. Anything personal and money related i do it in my linux partition since then.

Sure, a few may have better luck , but lots of us are not so lucky.

Even inserting usb thumb drives and downloading stuff i do only in linux partition and have done so for several years without ever having a problem, while if do the same on windows i would get infected many times. Glad those times are over.

Interesting article.
I've never experienced in first person a single virus (or generic malware) problem with my Linux desktop, over many years, but this reminds me that keeping eyes open and use good sense is always the first line of defense - a defense no one should give away!

To be honest, I've never had a virus that wasn't a stupid mistake on my part. It's only been from downloading torrents that hadn't been reviewed by people commenting on them. I don't blame the OS as it was my fault for not checking the files before executing them.

wahahahahaha Debian can still get infected by Bliss when running as root. Ya know, let's just hope nobody runs as root...

Look you only hear about 5 Linux virus' because 20 people use it. ROFL

Get out. Get Windows. Get laid.

zkid2010 said,
wahahahahaha Debian can still get infected by Bliss when running as root. Ya know, let's just hope nobody runs as root...

Look you only hear about 5 Linux virus' because 20 people use it. ROFL

Get out. Get Windows. Get laid.

20 people? Please. Go troll somewhere else you Windows fanboi.

ZekeComa said,

20 people? Please. Go troll somewhere else you Windows fanboi.


sarcasm hard much?
he has a point, 1,000,000,000 users > what, 100,000? for linux?

Shadowzz said,

sarcasm hard much?
he has a point, 1,000,000,000 users > what, 100,000? for linux?

try more like 60 million +

more power to you windows users, at least we don't have the ignorant bunch with programs that are poorly written, get ripped off by overpriced software, get told we need to buy a new computer everything a new OS is released and get told what we can and can't do to our own OS. Yeah how about them apples. Did I hear a toilet flush?

ZekeComa said,

try more like 60 million +

more power to you windows users, at least we don't have the ignorant bunch with programs that are poorly written, get ripped off by overpriced software, get told we need to buy a new computer everything a new OS is released and get told what we can and can't do to our own OS. Yeah how about them apples. Did I hear a toilet flush?

'
60million, still quite a small number compared to the 1billion + windows machines out there.
Other then that, i managed to run Windows 7 on a Pentium 3 1ghz with 256mb ram, and it wasnt awfully slow.
And your free to do w/e the hell you want with your windows. They do not limitate you on your usage whatsoever. Its not a damn iOS

ZekeComa said,

try more like 60 million +

more power to you windows users, at least we don't have the ignorant bunch with programs that are poorly written, get ripped off by overpriced software, get told we need to buy a new computer everything a new OS is released and get told what we can and can't do to our own OS. Yeah how about them apples. Did I hear a toilet flush?


That still doesnt give it more then 6% market. share in total. And theres tons of free programs for windows just like for linux... most free programs are compiled for both actually.
And if you claim windows is overpriced, sucks to pay for proper support... GL getting proper support on linux, if your lucky, some kid will actually help you out instead of telling you to go suck it and read the manpages. Which are about as helpfull as the windows help system..

oh ye, back in debian etch i had a package (from stable repos) that destroyed my apt-get/aptitude, and ended up with me having to reinstall debian all together. I've never had that with windows update tho.
Same with my ubuntu dualboot, it broke GRUB on updating i just get a sucky limited GRUB commandline now when i try to boot to ubuntu, havent bothered installing it again yet.

Edited by ShadowMajestic, Nov 29 2010, 1:02pm :

Shadowzz said,

That still doesnt give it more then 6% market. share in total. And theres tons of free programs for windows just like for linux... most free programs are compiled for both actually.
And if you claim windows is overpriced, sucks to pay for proper support... GL getting proper support on linux, if your lucky, some kid will actually help you out instead of telling you to go suck it and read the manpages. Which are about as helpfull as the windows help system..

oh ye, back in debian etch i had a package (from stable repos) that destroyed my apt-get/aptitude, and ended up with me having to reinstall debian all together. I've never had that with windows update tho.
Same with my ubuntu dualboot, it broke GRUB on updating i just get a sucky limited GRUB commandline now when i try to boot to ubuntu, havent bothered installing it again yet.

Well not everyone is like that just like no everyone is insane fanboi windows. Well always use the closed source drivers except ati, ati sucks horrible in linux. Remember Linux has the man pages, you can find a lot in there, but yes sometimes it's easier to find a simple answer.

Drop Debian and n00buntu. Both are the worst distros ever. But then again I compile my distro so yeah. Remember Debian and n00buntu aren't the only distros for Linux.

I don't care about market size for Linux. If Linux had a more larger, we start getting user's who probably try run root 24/7 like they do in Windows and all that junk. So if market size gets like that, no thanks, windows can keep them. But you also have to remember, Linux is not meant to really be a replacement for Windows. Because Linux is too powerful of an OS, which Windows isn't. It's for power users.

Edited by ZekeComa, Nov 29 2010, 3:54pm :

The only time I deal with viruses/malware on my nixbox is when I plug the flashdrive in after using it on someone's Windows box, and spending 2 minutes wiping various *exe files off of it.

Syanide said,
The only time I deal with viruses/malware on my nixbox is when I plug the flashdrive in after using it on someone's Windows box, and spending 2 minutes wiping various *exe files off of it.

Same here. I use ClamAV to scan Windows machines, but that's as close as I get to viruses on my box

Not very accurate really, back when I was involved in hacking the group I was with for a short time used to write all their own software (mainly aimed at linux servers) and there were LOADS of viruses and trojans.

Plus, where's phatbot? That is famous.

n_K said,
Not very accurate really, back when I was involved in hacking the group I was with for a short time used to write all their own software (mainly aimed at linux servers) and there were LOADS of viruses and trojans.

Plus, where's phatbot? That is famous.


Except none have been even remotely successful.

Flawed said,

Except none have been even remotely successful.

Oh yes because the number of linux boxes on .edu domains with very high speed connections shows that they have never been successful.
Grow up, http://www.zone-h.com and look at the stats for yourself.
You can hide things VERY well on linux so they are incredibly hard to find.

Flawed said,

Except none have been even remotely successful.

Again, if you infect a Panda with a virus, it is impossible to have the virus spread out throughout the whole world

"Given the tight security integrated into Linux, it is difficult to take advantage of a vulnerability on the computer" that's BS

chago12 said,
"Given the tight security integrated into Linux, it is difficult to take advantage of a vulnerability on the computer" that's BS

Explain how it's BS, you need to be Root to execute anything that can damage the system and only a moron would log in as root

z0phi3l said,

Explain how it's BS, you need to be Root to execute anything that can damage the system and only a moron would log in as root

No different than Vista or Win 7, you need Admin to execute anything that can damage the system, and only a moron would log in as Admin. So how is Linux security tighter? Again, people confuse market share with security.

Kirkburn said,
Ahem, z0phi3l mentioned no comparison with other OSes. He quite fairly asked for chago12 to back up his statement.

i shall not argue with someone with a handle as l33t as "z0phi3l".
i know my limitations /s

J_R_G said,

No different than Vista or Win 7, you need Admin to execute anything that can damage the system, and only a moron would log in as Admin. So how is Linux security tighter? Again, people confuse market share with security.

You only need to disable UAC, which many people do due to its excessive requests, to effectively become root. That is, the UAC is Microsoft's imitation of the sudo functionality from Linux/Unix. You can't bypass sudo at the click of a button like you can in windows. I'd say that's a huge difference. In addition, you have to provide your password, not simply click a button, which could potentially be bypassed/accidentally clicked.

Flawed said,

You only need to disable UAC, which many people do due to its excessive requests, to effectively become root. That is, the UAC is Microsoft's imitation of the sudo functionality from Linux/Unix. You can't bypass sudo at the click of a button like you can in windows. I'd say that's a huge difference. In addition, you have to provide your password, not simply click a button, which could potentially be bypassed/accidentally clicked.

Where is the difference in disabling UAC and logging in constantly as root?

MFH said,

Where is the difference in disabling UAC and logging in constantly as root?

You have to explicitly log in as root and athenticate in Linux. In Windows, once UAC is disabled, you are root permanently. In fact, in Ubuntu for instance, the root account isn't even activated. You have to go to great lengths to setup the root account.

Edited by Flawed, Nov 28 2010, 6:44pm :

Flawed said,

You only need to disable UAC, which many people do due to its excessive requests, to effectively become root. That is, the UAC is Microsoft's imitation of the sudo functionality from Linux/Unix. You can't bypass sudo at the click of a button like you can in windows. I'd say that's a huge difference. In addition, you have to provide your password, not simply click a button, which could potentially be bypassed/accidentally clicked.

With UAC disabled you still cannot ****up anything in the Windows Kernel without executing it as an admin.
And your only example is SUDO? damn.

However, there more windows machines with antivirus then linux machines. Windows even has basic anti-virus installed or free to download as an addon. (MSE is ranked one of the best anti virus scanners too, just a sidenote). Also, Windows has been patched so much, it has been targetted so much, for so many years. Beeing the biggest share, they get targetted the most, thus having more people spending their lifeless time into finding exploits for a billion user market, rather then a few hundred user market.

Besides, Linux has the advantage, that its mostly used by people WHO ACTUALLY KNOW CRAP ABOUT COMPUTERS as you can barely run/get Linux as a total freaking noob (i.e., most Windows/Mac users)

Shadowzz said,

With UAC disabled you still cannot ****up anything in the Windows Kernel without executing it as an admin.

And all you have to do is right click a program and run as admin to "****up anything" as you put it lol. No authentication, nothing.
Shadowzz said,

And your only example is SUDO? damn.

That's what UAC is, a poor man's imitation of sudo, that doesn't even authenticate.

Shadowzz said,

However, there more windows machines with antivirus then linux machines. Windows even has basic anti-virus installed or free to download as an addon. (MSE is ranked one of the best anti virus scanners too, just a sidenote).

And this is somehow an advantage? lolumad? Windows has more anti-virus software because it's a swiss-cheese OS, and full of security holes (like ActiveX). I can see the marketing blurb now - Windows is the best OS in the world because it has more anti-virus software! haha. You obviously don't see the irony in what you just said
Shadowzz said,

Also, Windows has been patched so much, it has been targetted so much, for so many years.

That's because it's full of security holes, hence the swiss-cheese analogy. Another reason it gets attacked so much is that the whole virus, malware, rootkit, trojan, and botnet markets grew up around it, thus, most of the code for them is written to exploit Windows. GNU/Linux, and OSX were secure from the start, so such a market couldn't develop around them.
Shadowzz said,

Beeing the biggest share, they get targetted the most, thus having more people spending their lifeless time into finding exploits for a billion user market, rather then a few hundred user market.

Security in obscurity: Disproven ad nauseum. Linux/Unix servers have a greater marketshare than Windows, yet Windows servers get attacked the most. iOS and Android have greater shares than WinMobile, the list goes on and on...

Shadowzz said,

Besides, Linux has the advantage, that its mostly used by people WHO ACTUALLY KNOW CRAP ABOUT COMPUTERS as you can barely run/get Linux as a total freaking noob (i.e., most Windows/Mac users)

Not true. My parents, and older friends, I'm talking people in there 50's/60's use Ubuntu on a daily basis. They have no difficulty with it whatsoever. In fact, it's easier for them to use because they don't have to deal with and worry about viruses and other malware infecting their systems. in addition, all the software they need is available through a single application - the Ubuntu Software Centre. There's no need to go hunting around the internet for applications, and to top it all, they are all free! No only that, but the single unified update manager keeps their entire system (including applications) up to date. How many Windows systems are running old versions of applications with exploits/vulnerabilities? A great deal no doubt, for Windows doesn't automatically update all the applications installed for important security patches, new features, etc.

Flawed said,

And all you have to do is right click a program and run as admin to "****up anything" as you put it lol. No authentication, nothing.

That's what UAC is, a poor man's imitation of sudo, that doesn't even authenticate.


Erm no, with UAC enabled, the 'run as administrator' requires you to enter a password.



And this is somehow an advantage? lolumad? Windows has more anti-virus software because it's a swiss-cheese OS, and full of security holes (like ActiveX). I can see the marketing blurb now - Windows is the best OS in the world because it has more anti-virus software! haha. You obviously don't see the irony in what you just said

Why make a virusscanner for Linux? Noone buys it, because practically NOONE uses Linux.

Umadbroa?


That's because it's full of security holes, hence the swiss-cheese analogy. Another reason it gets attacked so much is that the whole virus, malware, rootkit, trojan, and botnet markets grew up around it, thus, most of the code for them is written to exploit Windows. GNU/Linux, and OSX were secure from the start, so such a market couldn't develop around them.

Hmm, what was market leader before windows? Oh yeah i remember... Apple
What was infected first and most?
Apple?
DAMN son.
Linux secure, HAH... i'd love to see the marketshare switch from windows to linux... BOOM! Global domination of a OS in its childyears on malware protection.

And i wonder why Mac is always the first to go down in hacking competitions? Oh wait its uses a *nix kernel... awwww
secure you say?


Security in obscurity: Disproven ad nauseum. Linux/Unix servers have a greater marketshare than Windows, yet Windows servers get attacked the most. iOS and Android have greater shares than WinMobile, the list goes on and on...

Again the difference is just 5%, which is almost neglectable. Windows servers dont get attacked the most... let me look it up
http://www.zone-h.com/news/id/4735
now scroll down to the bottom
and what do we see, yes the following
Attacks on OS's (all distro's/windows versions together)

Linux:2,482,663
Windows: 1,187,222

Hmm, isnt that more then DOUBLE the ammount? Dont know, my math might be wrong. Lets grab a calculator, lets see, 2482663/1187222=2,0911531289009132243169348276902

Not true. My parents, and older friends, I'm talking people in there 50's/60's use Ubuntu on a daily basis. They have no difficulty with it whatsoever. In fact, it's easier for them to use because they don't have to deal with and worry about viruses and other malware infecting their systems. in addition, all the software they need is available through a single application - the Ubuntu Software Centre. There's no need to go hunting around the internet for applications, and to top it all, they are all free! No only that, but the single unified update manager keeps their entire system (including applications) up to date. How many Windows systems are running old versions of applications with exploits/vulnerabilities? A great deal no doubt, for Windows doesn't automatically update all the applications installed for important security patches, new features, etc.


You know you are naming the Windows among Linux distros eh?
The completely and utterly noobified Linux distro for the ftards.
Go use FreeBSD with no additional helpfull packages, let them use it. THATS linux.
Hell, i'd ask you to let yourself and your friends/parents use commandline only.... i wish you good luck.

Its gonna be fun when for work, or school they have to get a linux package thats not in the stable repositories, i wonder if without your help or crying to anyone else, they manage to find the sources list

Or better yet, if something breaks, they even know their way around he CMDline properly
Linux is NOT indestructable, unlike what you want to believe.

If there is a virtually indestructable OS, its Singularity
PS: Singularity is an OS developed by Microsoft

You highlighted Mac and Linux, now I want to see a list of the history of viruses/trojans/malware on Windows. Just so we can make a nice comparison.

.Neo said,
You highlighted Mac and Linux, now I want to see a list of the history of viruses/trojans/malware on Windows. Just so we can make a nice comparison.

Compare? LOL

.Neo said,
You highlighted Mac and Linux, now I want to see a list of the history of viruses/trojans/malware on Windows. Just so we can make a nice comparison.

read the very first post, genius

.Neo said,
Just so we can make a nice comparison.

All the viruses/malwares listed for GNU/Linux and OSX aren't really what I would call viruses, at least not very successful ones. There are no wide spread infections on either platform. Windows still has a monopoly on viruses, malware, rootkits, and trojans.

I guess the author is just trying to show that windows isn't the only OS targeted. While that may be techically true, no malware has been able to infect machines in sufficient quantities because both platforms were built with security in mind from the very beginning, unlike windows, which just added it later as a second thought. And thus, the malware market for Windows was born. And as windows became a monopoly on the desktop so did it's monopoly on malware, which still exists to this day xD

Flawed said,

All the viruses/malwares listed for GNU/Linux and OSX aren't really what I would call viruses, at least not very successful ones. There are no wide spread infections on either platform. Windows still has a monopoly on viruses, malware, rootkits, and trojans.

I guess the author is just trying to show that windows isn't the only OS targeted. While that may be techically true, no malware has been able to infect machines in sufficient quantities because both platforms were built with security in mind from the very beginning, unlike windows, which just added it later as a second thought. And thus, the malware market for Windows was born. And as windows became a monopoly on the desktop so did it's monopoly on malware, which still exists to this day xD

dude, Windows is more secure than OSX, and its proved by hackers, only OSX is not targeted by hackers bcoz of its low user population, once it get popular you will see long of list of viruses on it too. you are talking like unix fanboi from 2001, its 2010.

simrat said,

dude, Windows is more secure than OSX, and its proved by hackers

A hacker competition is not the same thing as real world security threats. Look how many Windows machines are infected with viruses, trojans, malware, rootkits, and botnets, then tell me again that windows is more secure. Absolute nonsense. Windows fans always bring up the pwn2own competitions, but they are meaningless. This is a competition where the competitors know beforehand which versions, and machines they are trying to break. So they bring a list of exploits with them, and spend hours/days trying things out. I'm sorry, but those are not real world conditions, and thus are meaningless in terms of security.

Flawed said,

All the viruses/malwares listed for GNU/Linux and OSX aren't really what I would call viruses, at least not very successful ones. There are no wide spread infections on either platform. Windows still has a monopoly on viruses, malware, rootkits, and trojans.

I guess the author is just trying to show that windows isn't the only OS targeted. While that may be techically true, no malware has been able to infect machines in sufficient quantities because both platforms were built with security in mind from the very beginning, unlike windows, which just added it later as a second thought. And thus, the malware market for Windows was born. And as windows became a monopoly on the desktop so did it's monopoly on malware, which still exists to this day xD


its like giving a panda a virus and wondering why its not spread around the world

there are what, 5000 windows machines to 1 linux machine, offcourse you cant spread any virus on such low densities >.>

i really wonder what you've been smoking

Flawed said,

A hacker competition is not the same thing as real world security threats. Look how many Windows machines are infected with viruses, trojans, malware, rootkits, and botnets, then tell me again that windows is more secure. Absolute nonsense. Windows fans always bring up the pwn2own competitions, but they are meaningless. This is a competition where the competitors know beforehand which versions, and machines they are trying to break. So they bring a list of exploits with them, and spend hours/days trying things out. I'm sorry, but those are not real world conditions, and thus are meaningless in terms of security.

Super cool story bro! im impressed by your power of trolling. keep it up!

can anyone suggest a linux distro that's perfect for newbies? Ease of install/use/benefits (other than the obvious free s/w thing), I mean can a penguin box do serious stuff like run music s/w for composing, or be a gaming rig or stuff like that. I will be buying a new PC soon but I don't have anything saved yet to buy Win 7 Ultimate. Hey, are there any Win 7 Ultimate license giveaways?

deeweb said,
can anyone suggest a linux distro that's perfect for newbies? Ease of install/use/benefits (other than the obvious free s/w thing), I mean can a penguin box do serious stuff like run music s/w for composing, or be a gaming rig or stuff like that. I will be buying a new PC soon but I don't have anything saved yet to buy Win 7 Ultimate. Hey, are there any Win 7 Ultimate license giveaways?

If you happen to be a student you can get Win 7 Pro for $65. http://www.microsoft.com/stude...ftware/windows/default.aspx

protocol7 said,
You don't need Ultimate for gaming and music. Just get Home Premium.

Exactly. because everyone knows Home Premium is all that's needed for a high percentage of people since it's the lowest version of Win7 that's still got everything you need. it's once you get lower than Home Premium is when it sucks.

@deeweb: Linux Mint, the highest praised distro of these days. Based on Ubuntu, oriented to noobs. And no, for composing there is not even half-decent software with the pardon of linux nerds (i use Sibelius 6 in windows), and to be honest forget about gaming too, except for a few windows games that run ok with Wine (if you know how to work with that).

Edited by thartist, Nov 27 2010, 11:51pm :

deeweb said,
can anyone suggest a linux distro that's perfect for newbies? Ease of install/use/benefits...

Ubuntu 10.10 no question. Very easy to install/learn/use. The Ubuntu Software Centre is the most user friendly software repository app I have ever used. It's based on debian, so it has a vast catalogue of software available for it. 99% of popular hardware works out of the box flawlessly. No need to download drivers like in windows. Very efficient and low resource usage compared with Vista/7. And once you start using Compiz (the composition platform for Linux), Aero will seem amateurish.

i also recommend ubuntu. its the most easy-to-use linux version....but you can get some problem with video drivers if you are using Ati cards

Flawed said,

Ubuntu 10.10 no question. Very easy to install/learn/use. The Ubuntu Software Centre is the most user friendly software repository app I have ever used. It's based on debian, so it has a vast catalogue of software available for it. 99% of popular hardware works out of the box flawlessly. No need to download drivers like in windows. Very efficient and low resource usage compared with Vista/7. And once you start using Compiz (the composition platform for Linux), Aero will seem amateurish.

very efficient and lo resource usage compared to vista/7? dude did you ever used vista/7?
compiz look like from 2004, it is no way comparable to Aero, its fun to play with it for sometime, but you will get bored of it. ( coming from guy who use ubuntu and windows 7 everyday )

deeweb said,
can anyone suggest a linux distro that's perfect for newbies? Ease of install/use/benefits (other than the obvious free s/w thing), I mean can a penguin box do serious stuff like run music s/w for composing, or be a gaming rig or stuff like that. I will be buying a new PC soon but I don't have anything saved yet to buy Win 7 Ultimate. Hey, are there any Win 7 Ultimate license giveaways?

+1 for Ubuntu 10.10

simrat said,
i also recommend ubuntu. its the most easy-to-use linux version....but you can get some problem with video drivers if you are using Ati cards

Never had a problem with ATI cards. The open source Radeon HD drivers work great, even in 3D mode. The proprietary drivers can be buggy, but you can blame ATI for that, not Linux.


simrat said,

very efficient and lo resource usage compared to vista/7? dude did you ever used vista/7?

I use them all the time. Memory and CPU hog comes to mind. I recommend to people to either move to Ubuntu, or stick with XP. Vista and 7 are a waste of time.

simrat said,

compiz look like from 2004, it is no way comparable to Aero, its fun to play with it for sometime, but you will get bored of it. ( coming from guy who use ubuntu and windows 7 everyday )

LOL. Have you even used compiz? It's vastly superior to Aero. In fact, it doesn't even belong in the same category, it's that much better.

Flawed said,

Never had a problem with ATI cards. The open source Radeon HD drivers work great, even in 3D mode. The proprietary drivers can be buggy, but you can blame ATI for that, not Linux.

ATI hasnt fixed its drivers for linux untill relativly recently.
Same with Nvidia.


I use them all the time. Memory and CPU hog comes to mind. I recommend to people to either move to Ubuntu, or stick with XP. Vista and 7 are a waste of time.

Ye because Ubuntu does not hog more resources then Windows vista or 7.... oh wait.. IT DOES.
750-800mb RAM on fresh install of ubuntu?
Vista and w7 where around 600mb for me after a fresh install.
Besides, thanks to stuff like prefetching, Vista/W7 are much faster doing your daily chores then Ubuntu ever will be.
Oh noes, it uses more ram for prefetching... ITS A RESOURCE HOG...
if you have less then 4GB of ram in your box, GO AND BUY MORE, its like 5 bucks per gig.


LOL. Have you even used compiz? It's vastly superior to Aero. In fact, it doesn't even belong in the same category, it's that much better.

whahaha, you have the same 'goodies' compiz has on Windows, the nice cubed desktop, the wobbly windows, the burning window closing...etc.etc..
Might look al flashy and pretty, how practical is it all? And how practical is what (w7) Aero gives except the nice shiny seethrough stuff


God i love those linux fanboys, they are so freaking similar to goddamn religious fanatics.


Never had a problem with ATI cards. The open source Radeon HD drivers work great, even in 3D mode. The proprietary drivers can be buggy, but you can blame ATI for that, not Linux.

Cool story bro, everyone knows linux have ****ty ATI driver support, im using Ati 4890 and always its trouble to get my video card working out of box.

I use them all the time. Memory and CPU hog comes to mind. I recommend to people to either move to Ubuntu, or stick with XP. Vista and 7 are a waste of time.

troll elsewhere, if 7 was memory hog than why it is fastest selling OS? the studio where i work replaced there XP systems with 7 this june and we noted difference in rendering time. for your information i use ubuntu 10.10 on same hardware and it runs slower than my windows system.


LOL. Have you even used compiz? It's vastly superior to Aero. In fact, it doesn't even belong in the same category, it's that much better.

i use ubuntu everyday ( we use Blender on ubuntu ). Compiz has nice effects but they look from 2001, even Compiz slow down system performance, but aero didnt affect CPU or RAM. dont get me started on linux, im linux user from 4 years, so please troll elsewhere.

I'm a windows loyalist, this article was informative as I really din't know much about viruses on penguin boxes.....

hmm... Avast actually blocked this page for some reason. Ahh wait. The 2001 section must be flagging it because the detected infection was ELF:Satyr... Lol.

shinji257 said,
hmm... Avast actually blocked this page for some reason. Ahh wait. The 2001 section must be flagging it because the detected infection was ELF:Satyr... Lol.

Yeah same here, must be because the url the virus includes is in the article.

omnicoder said,
Avast blocks this page as a virus. Dunno if it's the title or what.

Its probably due to the amount of virus names on the page lol.

thealexweb said,
Fail of an anti-virus XD

An intelligent user would say that it's better to be safe than sorry, but you obviously know better, right?

omnicoder said,
Avast blocks this page as a virus. Dunno if it's the title or what.

I replaced part of the offending URL with *'s so that hopefully it doesn't block the page.

BBgamer said,
Now, can we have a history of viruses on Windows?

Thing is, Windows users don't say ridiculous things like they're OS is immune to viruses. Since everyone acknowledges there are Windows viruses, what would be the point of listing them?

Also numbers are irrelevant, if you can have 1 virus, you can have millions, perhaps just slight variations like most Windows viruses are.

KavazovAngel said,

Hmm... when I think about it, I'll say, the 2003...2010 section would be empty.

Been offline for a while?

Brandon B. said,

Haha, that'd take all year to write!

More like a decade. There are million of Windows viruses, spyware, malware, trojans...

BTW the list isn't very truthful, some don't count as viruses. And there are others not mentioned, like the rootkits...

Rudy said,
Been offline for a while?

I think what he means is that between those times, and I would personally start from 2006 - 2010 viruses in the traditional sense are over. It's just all malware.

warwagon said,

I think what he means is that between those times, and I would personally start from 2006 - 2010 viruses in the traditional sense are over. It's just all malware.

i agree. 2006-2010 is quiet in terms of viruses (for those using vista and windows 7). also, eventhough windows viruses are more plentiful than linux and osx combined, the fact remains that the majority still prefer windows. i'd say it's because windows is generally more useful to the general public and businesses.

i'm still curious though, since we're done with mac and now linux, i'd like to see how looooong a list would windows have just for the lols!

oh, and: windows 7 + MSE ftw.

BBgamer said,
Now, can we have a history of viruses on Windows?

Neowin'd need to limit themselves to the last month to not get too verbose.

I don't blame Windows for this though, but rather the high popularity and too many incompetent users. No operating system -- not Linux, nor OS X, nor Windows -- can protect against especially trojans. It's all about the users. Always.

Northgrove said,

Neowin'd need to limit themselves to the last month to not get too verbose.

I don't blame Windows for this though, but rather the high popularity and too many incompetent users. No operating system -- not Linux, nor OS X, nor Windows -- can protect against especially trojans. It's all about the users. Always.


It's not always the user. There are plenty of remote exploits on Windows that need no user interaction to get installed. Some of those are even served from "legit" website in the form of ads. The user is not always to blame.
Popularity of the OS, and wrong approach to software installations are key issues for virus spreading.

3rd impact said,

i agree. 2006-2010 is quiet in terms of viruses (for those using vista and windows 7).

Most worm/trojan type virus don't spread as much now because ISPs take active rolls in protecting their network by blocking ports between its users and doing basic dns hijacking to a warning page if your machine is detected as having a torjan/virus installed.

Lechio said,

It's not always the user. There are plenty of remote exploits on Windows that need no user interaction to get installed. Some of those are even served from "legit" website in the form of ads. The user is not always to blame.
Popularity of the OS, and wrong approach to software installations are key issues for virus spreading.

Every OS has plenty of exploits that need no user interaction. And they can get served malware from ads as well. And there is nothing wrong with the approach to software installations, there are plenty of trusted sources for Windows software (the local store, majorgeeks, etc.) if people choose not to use them that's their fault. Also it really is the user's fault, with modern OSes, malware from ads are not going to be able to infect the system, as bypassing DEP, ASLR, SEHOP, Protected Mode, etc. is not practical in the vast majority of vulnerabilties.

3rd impact said,

oh, and: windows 7 + MSE ftw.

I hope you don't get infected with the tdss rootkit then, because MSE doesn't detect it or remove it

Flawed said,

I hope you don't get infected with the tdss rootkit then, because MSE doesn't detect it or remove it

what about those people who never used any antivirus and have clean windows system?

i think they use something called Brain.

Lechio said,

It's not always the user. There are plenty of remote exploits on Windows that need no user interaction to get installed. Some of those are even served from "legit" website in the form of ads. The user is not always to blame.
Popularity of the OS, and wrong approach to software installations are key issues for virus spreading.

how come i never got any virus on my system? i never used any antivirus....i visit every website without any problem, never got infected, i do system scan with 2-3 antivirus in a week and never caught any virus in 4 years, its just depend on user.

Windows vista/7 + brain FTW

simrat said,

what about those people who never used any antivirus and have clean windows system?

i think they use something called Brain.


QFT

Rudy said,
Been offline for a while?

Got my first internet connection in 2003... and nope, never had a single problem with malware on my PCs or my lappy.

simrat said,

what about those people who never used any antivirus and have clean windows system?

i think they use something called Brain.

I think they're more like zombies really.

BBgamer said,
Now, can we have a history of viruses on Windows?

till the time the list would be prepared , thousands more would come into existence

simrat said,

how come i never got any virus on my system? i never used any antivirus....i visit every website without any problem, never got infected, i do system scan with 2-3 antivirus in a week and never caught any virus in 4 years, its just depend on user.
Windows vista/7 + brain FTW

Well, if you use GNU/Linux, you never have to worry about or scan for viruses. I'd say that peace of mind far outweighs using resource hogs like Vista/7.

Flawed said,

Well, if you use GNU/Linux, you never have to worry about or scan for viruses. I'd say that peace of mind far outweighs using resource hogs like Vista/7.

Funny that a default Ubuntu installation uses around 700-800MB of RAM and CPU useage in idle around 5-10%....
which is higher then a default Vista or Windows 7 installation.

and the only proper distro's are Debian and Ubuntu, Ubuntu is a resource hog, and Debian has a 13 year old UNPATCHED virus.

Lechio said,

More like a decade. There are million of Windows viruses, spyware, malware, trojans...

BTW the list isn't very truthful, some don't count as viruses. And there are others not mentioned, like the rootkits...


Now compare the following:
Users to number of virusses per OS
Amount of security exploits fixed within <1 month after beeing found.

windows:
0,5 virusses per user.
most exploits are fixed relativly fast.

Mac:
4 virusses per user
most exploits take months to get fixed.

Linux:
20 virusses per user
One exploit that is 13 years old? Are you kidding me?

Shadowzz said,

Funny that a default Ubuntu installation uses around 700-800MB of RAM and CPU useage in idle around 5-10%....which is higher then a default Vista or Windows 7 installation.

I'm sorry, but that's an outright lie. I'm using 350mb with firefox and multiple tabs open, along with conky, avant, and compiz activated. And without any applications running, my cpu usage varies from 0-1%, although mileage may vary depending on your system, especially with compiz running. Windows on the other hand uses 1gig of ram idle, and a much greater share of the cpu's time without even running any applications.

Shadowzz said,

and the only proper distro's are Debian and Ubuntu, Ubuntu is a resource hog, and Debian has a 13 year old UNPATCHED virus.

I wish I had a fail poster for this. You clearly know nothing about Linux, distros, or how they work.

Shadowzz said,

Now compare the following:
Users to number of virusses per OS
Amount of security exploits fixed within <1 month after beeing found.

You mean vulnerabilities? Less discovered vulnerabilities != more secure. Haven't you been keeping up...
Shadowzz said,

windows:
0,5 virusses per user.
most exploits are fixed relativly fast.

Where on earth do you get your figures from? There are tens of millions of Windows machines infected at this very moment with viruses, malware, rootkits, trojans, botnets, etc. Which machines do you think are used to conduct a coordinated DDOS attack? That's right, Windows based PC's part of a botnet.

Microsoft has one of the slowest turnaround times for patches in the IT industry. With Linux, and FOSS, you can get turnarounds of a few days, but Microsoft can takes months. Would you like to be vulnerable to real world malware exploiting IE for a whole month? Good luck with that.

Shadowzz said,

Mac:
4 virusses per user
most exploits take months to get fixed.

Where are all these infected users then? There are none, it's all fabricated. Again, no real world exploits like the Windows ones, and no mass infections.

Shadowzz said,

Linux:
20 virusses per user
One exploit that is 13 years old? Are you kidding me?

Show me one GNU/Linux machine infected with a virus in the wild please!

I'm sorry, but your assertions are blatantly fabrications. Better luck next time though lol. For now you can rest assured that your operating system (Windows) is the most insecure in the world, with ten's of millions of infected systems worldwide. Now tell me again about the security of Windows.

Flawed said,
Microsoft has one of the slowest turnaround times for patches in the IT industry. With Linux, and FOSS, you can get turnarounds of a few days, but Microsoft can takes months. Would you like to be vulnerable to real world malware exploiting IE for a whole month? Good luck with that.

Would you want to be responsible for pushing a patch that could break a few hundred million systems? QA can be rough. Microsoft does respond to issues, take Code Red, the vulnerability was patched two months BEFORE the virus came out, people however didn't apply the patch. People not taking needed steps is the biggest issue.

Flawed said,
Show me one GNU/Linux machine infected with a virus in the wild please!

*nix servers are the most often compromised (Something on the order of 3x) (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/ma...ten-than-windows-2003-23371). Its a matter of population and how the systems are hardened.

90% of all windows vulnerabilities require administrative rights to work. People still think they need to run as admin all the time, thats like running Linux as root. http://www.networkworld.com/ne...ghts-mitigates-windows.html

shial said,

Would you want to be responsible for pushing a patch that could break a few hundred million systems? QA can be rough.

How is Linux any different. Patches are pushed out daily that can affect millions of users. It still doesn't excuse the slow turnarounds, and leaving users in the lurch for months at a time.

shial said,

Microsoft does respond to issues, take Code Red, the vulnerability was patched two months BEFORE the virus came out, people however didn't apply the patch. People not taking needed steps is the biggest issue.

And what about outdated exploitable applications that don't get updated by Windows Update. In Linux the package manager updates everything, in Windows, you are lucky if the Microsoft apps get updated, never mind every other third party application.

shial said,

*nix servers are the most often compromised (Something on the order of 3x) (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/ma...ten-than-windows-2003-23371). Its a matter of population and how the systems are hardened.

I said user virus infections in the wild, not server password dictionary attacks and sql injection attacks. And by the way, these are not confirmed figures, hackers who claim to have bute forced their way into public servers exploiting misconfigurations, poor password security, and outdated software. AKA lazy admins. And there are 3x because there are many more Linux servers than windows. 75% market share. Actually if you look at the earliest figures, Windows has greater attacks, not Linux. In addition, there are no recent figures there. It ends in 2007.

shial said,

90% of all windows vulnerabilities require administrative rights to work.

And yet Windows users don't need to authenticate to escalate privileges. Right click file->run as admin after UAC is disabled. Bingo - you have root access.
shial said,

People still think they need to run as admin all the time

Well, can you blame them? Every Windows version before Vista had root as the default account. Security was an afterthought in Windows, whereas in Unix/Linux/OSX, they were built with layered security from the very beginning.
shial said,

, thats like running Linux as root.

Except no Linux distro logs you in as root by default, except perhaps a live cd. To get to root you always have to authenticate, not just click a button like in Vista/7.

Edited by Flawed, Nov 29 2010, 7:40am :

Flawed said,

You mean vulnerabilities? Less discovered vulnerabilities != more secure. Haven't you been keeping up...

You just strengthen my point that Windows has way...way more discovered vulnerabilities over its history then any other OS, and thus (most likely) has allot more patched/fixed.

Where on earth do you get your figures from? There are tens of millions of Windows machines infected at this very moment with viruses, malware, rootkits, trojans, botnets, etc. Which machines do you think are used to conduct a coordinated DDOS attack? That's right, Windows based PC's part of a botnet.

There more then a billion windows machines, maybe millions infected, even if its 10million, thats just 1%... even less.
but there arent a billion linux/mac machines, not even remotely close. And thanks to the introduction of Ubuntu to noobs, the virusses for Linux are raising anyways.
And for your information, there are 10s of thousands of linux systems part of a botnet aswell. percentage of systems to drones is probably similar to windows.

Microsoft has one of the slowest turnaround times for patches in the IT industry. With Linux, and FOSS, you can get turnarounds of a few days, but Microsoft can takes months. Would you like to be vulnerable to real world malware exploiting IE for a whole month? Good luck with that.

Oh ye, we all never heard of patch tuesday, the 13year old vulnerability showed here on debian and what not. Overall when exploits are known, Microsoft fixes them faster as Apple, and Linux barely fixes anything... if they have to fix it, it easily takes up to a year before its fixed....
Good luck exploiting IE8 btw, if you can break its sandboxing (and only then you can infect the actual machine) please show me, not only show me, you'll be famous.

Where are all these infected users then? There are none, it's all fabricated. Again, no real world exploits like the Windows ones, and no mass infections.

Think straigth bro, no hacker/exploiter with half a brain would target <3% of the global market.
Would you target the smallest or biggest portion of the market?


Show me one GNU/Linux machine infected with a virus in the wild please!

Ye im sorry to've claim that in a topic thats about linux virusses that have been in the wild, with some still roaming around in the wild.

I'm sorry, but your assertions are blatantly fabrications. Better luck next time though lol. For now you can rest assured that your operating system (Windows) is the most insecure in the world, with ten's of millions of infected systems worldwide. Now tell me again about the security of Windows.

Ninja say whot?

Flawed said,

I'm sorry, but that's an outright lie. I'm using 350mb with firefox and multiple tabs open, along with conky, avant, and compiz activated. And without any applications running, my cpu usage varies from 0-1%, although mileage may vary depending on your system, especially with compiz running. Windows on the other hand uses 1gig of ram idle, and a much greater share of the cpu's time without even running any applications.

I would've showed you with a screenshot, but updating Ubuntu broke Ubuntu, cant get passed GRUB as it just gives me a command line, and even tho i've run Debian servers for almost a decade now, i am not that known with Desktop particulair errors and ****, and tbh i cba to even fix it.
I installed clean Windows 7 (upgrading from its BETA release to RTM) and right after, without changing or installing anything on windows 7, i installed Ubuntu. As i always wanted to install Ubuntu again, i did them the same time, just for comparisons on resource hogging, start up speed and actual useability. Ubuntu Hogged more, was a bit faster with starting up (maybe 5-10 seconds), missed truetype fonts by default (yes they can be hacked into it, its not legal tho) and on even simple 3d games, poor 3d power... and yes i have installed ATI's own drivers.
Compiz however, was pretty nice, but not more usefull then W7's Aero, as it has the same functionality except that Compiz has more graphical stuff added into it.

Linux is GREAT for servers, windows2008 is pretty good to, but still more designed for big companies and bussiness networks. Still depends what you want to do with it. As I'm using allot of Java and PHP, im using Debian as my server.


I wish I had a fail poster for this. You clearly know nothing about Linux, distros, or how they work.

Oh ye, i havent used Debian almost as long as I have Windows at all
I havent made it possible for a Fedora Core machine to run flawlessly in a Windows only network(with IE7 only websites). I have tried and used almost every (major) release of Ubuntu since i think 4 or 5. I even remember Beryll and Compiz beeing seperate packages And i havent been running Debian servers for almost a decade at all.

Kudos for the nice try tho.

Flawed said,

How is Linux any different. Patches are pushed out daily that can affect millions of users. It still doesn't excuse the slow turnarounds, and leaving users in the lurch for months at a time.

Daily you say? Go check the topic, theres a 13 year old vulnerability out there in the wild... THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. might be a low risk mail spreading virus, but still. If this would be the case with Windows, where a Windows98 virus could infect windows 7, you would party your ass off flaming windows users. And yes I am aware of some vulnerabilities that come from 98 still where there in 7, but they havent been known/in the wild for 13 years tho.

And what about outdated exploitable applications that don't get updated by Windows Update. In Linux the package manager updates everything, in Windows, you are lucky if the Microsoft apps get updated, never mind every other third party application.

Since Vista, The programmers of those applications can sign up to Microsoft to be part of Windows Update. This is even more open in Windows 7, and Windows 8 is rumoured to come default with a whole package manager like system.
But Linux has the same issue, if their programs are NOT properly formed into the repositories, they wont be automatically updated through aptitude. And mostly the repository packages are outdated, even if you take the testing/unstable repos.

I said user virus infections in the wild, not server password dictionary attacks and sql injection attacks. And by the way, these are not confirmed figures, hackers who claim to have bute forced their way into public servers exploiting misconfigurations, poor password security, and outdated software. AKA lazy admins. And there are 3x because there are many more Linux servers than windows. 75% market share. Actually if you look at the earliest figures, Windows has greater attacks, not Linux. In addition, there are no recent figures there. It ends in 2007.

SQL injection is still an exploit. Learn to properly use SQL.
As a counter-argument, most infected windows machines are outdated machines with people that turn of or ignore autoupdate, which is why Vista/W7 FORCE you to autoupdate unless you choose otherwise. Unlike XP.

Oh and your right that there are more Linux servers then Windows servers, however the difference in 2009 was a mere 5%. 50% for linux and 45% for Windows
And as far as I know, Debian is by far the biggest Linux distro, (not sure on desktop marketshare anymore since Ubuntu 9 tho) but Debian is also one of the oldest OS still around.


And yet Windows users don't need to authenticate to escalate privileges. Right click file->run as admin after UAC is disabled. Bingo - you have root access.

Thats why UAC has multiple levels, mouse/keyboard interacted actions will go through without a hitch, but any automated interaction can be blocked by UAC, setting it below this setting and its completely the users fault that the system gets infected. You can NOT blame that on the OS even tho you love to try it. Its like running your Linux 100% on your passwordless root account.


Well, can you blame them? Every Windows version before Vista had root as the default account. Security was an afterthought in Windows, whereas in Unix/Linux/OSX, they were built with layered security from the very beginning.

Actually, Windows XP had a seperate root account and gave users other then the main user, limited access, unless chosen differently. However, most users never set a password for the Administrator account. And used the headuser account as their main account.... still a user error tho, under limited account its allot harder to break a winXP machine.


Except no Linux distro logs you in as root by default, except perhaps a live cd. To get to root you always have to authenticate, not just click a button like in Vista/7.

Wow, a true statement. I'm impressed!

Shadowzz said,

Now compare the following:
Users to number of virusses per OS
Amount of security exploits fixed within <1 month after beeing found.

windows:
0,5 virusses per user.
most exploits are fixed relativly fast.

Mac:
4 virusses per user
most exploits take months to get fixed.

Linux:
20 virusses per user
One exploit that is 13 years old? Are you kidding me?

How are you coming up with these numbers? I don't know of any basis for them at all.

What 13 year old exploit are you referring to? I don't know of one. If you are talking about the Bliss virus/trojan mentioned in the article, then you should be aware that Bliss does not rely on any vulnerability at all. Bliss has to be run by the user (that's why it's partly a trojan). Once it's run by the user, it will try to attach itself to other executable files that the user has write access to (that's why it's partly a virus). Most users don't have write access to a lot of executables. Bliss doesn't travel very well in the wild because it depends on people downloading or copying an infected executable file between different machines. Also, downloaded files have to be modified to become executable unless you put them inside a compressed file system like a zip file or a package for installation. Bliss has no means of direct propagation.

Shadowzz said,

Daily you say? Go check the topic, theres a 13 year old vulnerability out there in the wild... THIRTEEN YEARS OLD. might be a low risk mail spreading virus, but still. If this would be the case with Windows, where a Windows98 virus could infect windows 7, you would party your ass off flaming windows users. And yes I am aware of some vulnerabilities that come from 98 still where there in 7, but they havent been known/in the wild for 13 years tho.

Bliss doesn't depend on any vulnerability. It has to spread as a trojan. It only attaches itself to executable files the logged in user has write access to within the file system. Usually, that's not much unless the user runs the trojan as root.

Since Vista, The programmers of those applications can sign up to Microsoft to be part of Windows Update. This is even more open in Windows 7, and Windows 8 is rumoured to come default with a whole package manager like system.
But Linux has the same issue, if their programs are NOT properly formed into the repositories, they wont be automatically updated through aptitude. And mostly the repository packages are outdated, even if you take the testing/unstable repos.

Well, it's nice that Windows is taking a cue from Linux and using a package manager approach to beef up security (MSI is still rather flaky as a package manager in my experience, though).

Repository packages in many Linux distros may be somewhat outdated somewhat as to feature sets for the sake of stability. However, security patches are not outdated even in distros that take an ultraconservative approach to package upgrades like Debian.

SQL injection is still an exploit. Learn to properly use SQL.
As a counter-argument, most infected windows machines are outdated machines with people that turn of or ignore autoupdate, which is why Vista/W7 FORCE you to autoupdate unless you choose otherwise. Unlike XP.

I thought his point about SQL injection attacks was that they were related to administrative issues rather than operating system security issues.

Oh and your right that there are more Linux servers then Windows servers, however the difference in 2009 was a mere 5%. 50% for linux and 45% for Windows
And as far as I know, Debian is by far the biggest Linux distro, (not sure on desktop marketshare anymore since Ubuntu 9 tho) but Debian is also one of the oldest OS still around.

We should clarify that the references to there being more Linux servers are referring to Web servers. Also, the increase in Windows run Web servers seems to be much at the expense of proprietary versions of Unix rather than Linux. It's also related to the recently much improved security and general workability of IIS. Incidentally, I don't think that Debian was really ever the biggest desktop distribution of Linux. Also, Red Hat and variations of it like CentOS are very popular server distributions as well. I'm not sure of the percentages of running Web servers.

Thats why UAC has multiple levels, mouse/keyboard interacted actions will go through without a hitch, but any automated interaction can be blocked by UAC, setting it below this setting and its completely the users fault that the system gets infected. You can NOT blame that on the OS even tho you love to try it. Its like running your Linux 100% on your passwordless root account.

UAC tries to be an answer to all the leftover security vulnerabilities that Windows has because of legacy issues regarding software compatibility. It does succeed to a reasonable extent, although I do find it somewhat annoying at times (it's not always a transparent solution).

Actually, Windows XP had a seperate root account and gave users other then the main user, limited access, unless chosen differently. However, most users never set a password for the Administrator account. And used the headuser account as their main account.... still a user error tho, under limited account its allot harder to break a winXP machine.

I've built enough Windows XP machines to know that the default first user account has full administrative privileges. After that, additional users will not have administrative privileges unless given them. Windows 2000 was the same way. Since most home users just use the first account as a regular user, they generally end up with administrative privileges.

Also, a lot of Windows software makes if quite inconvenient to run without administrative privileges. This is another legacy issue related to the way Windows was run in the past. UAC attempts to fix this issue as well, and as I said, it does a reasonably decent job. Of course nothing will protect users from willfully installing trojans.

Of course, as far as I am concerned, Windows is just generally annoying to run because it won't always do what you tell it to do. I never really had much of an issue with security on Windows because it was easy for someone who knew what he was doing to avoid most of the threats. The last time I remember getting a virus on my own personal machine it was a master boot record virus on a Windows 3.1 machine transferred via floppy from an infected Windows 95/98 machine that relied on an attempt to boot from the floppy to spread. However, Windows behaves like a problem child who does 'sort of' what you tell him rather than precisely what you tell him. Linux is better behaved. Also, I find it generally cheaper to run Linux.

Shadowzz said,
Compiz however, was pretty nice, but not more usefull then W7's Aero, as it has the same functionality except that Compiz has more graphical stuff added into it.

Rather exposed yourself here. Compiz is many, many, MANY times more capable than Aero. Seriously, run (hell, even just Google) CCSM and tell me that Aero has the same functionality. It doesn't, that's an outright lie.

Rodrin said,

I've built enough Windows XP machines to know that the default first user account has full administrative privileges. After that, additional users will not have administrative privileges unless given them. Windows 2000 was the same way. Since most home users just use the first account as a regular user, they generally end up with administrative privileges.

Actually, as I think about it, Windows 2000 sets up only the administrator account in a default install (Windows XP sets up the administrator account plus another user with administrative privileges). Sorry about that. It's been a while since I set up a Windows 2000 box from scratch (without using an image). It works out similarly with both systems because a Windows 2000 administrator has to set up any additional accounts. Of course, you would hope that someone setting up Windows 2000 would be aware of the issues involved and set up any additional accounts as needed.