Just to echo and amplify Haines' response, while it is true that Linux can
and will have exploitable vulnerabilities, the kind of destruction that
viruses can wreak on Windows 95/98 boxes is plain impossible on a Linux
box provided its operator does not make the fatal mistake of running as
root all the time.
The most damage you can do when running anything as a non-privledged user
is to that user's own files.
A similar case holds true for NT/2000: If you use the security methods and
set up accounts and then do not run as "administrator" all the time (and
you use NTFS and do NOT use FAT, all bets are off with FAT!), then the
effect of viruses is similarly limited. If you use Office, however, once
again all bets are off. Office provides a privledged platform for code
execution. Macro viruses spread by Outlook are the biggest hole in the
market right now and this applies to ALL Windows incarnations.
The truth is that Microsoft hasn't paid the slightest attention to design
for security until quite recently. There's a lot of code in the Linux
world that is likewise poorly designed, but the OS itself is better at
limiting the effects.
I do not, however, hold with those you think Linux is "invulnerable." But
the lack of viruses is not due entirely to inattention by miscreants.
Security has been a major concern for some time in *nix design circles and
there are well established techniques for "Secure coding." Consult
"Practical Unix & Internet Security" by Garfinkle and Spafford.
Mike Schwarz
n0zes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
