Can Ubuntu get a virus

Answer 1

To say that Linux is completely free from viruses and malware is not entirely true. It is, however, much more resistant to it than Windows is. Root accounts, prompt patching of security holes, and a heterogeneous mixture of software make Linux a much more difficult target when developing malware. I would say that is never going to be necessary to run anti-virus software for Linux, I do not think they work very well in Windows and they certainly do not belong in Linux. Education is still the best way to prevent viruses. Never install software from sources you do not trust. Ubuntu and other distributions already verify that every package that is installed is signed by the correct provider. The best defense against viruses and other attacks is what it has always bee, keep your software up to date. Spyware, viruses and other malware have become an increasing problem on Microsoft Windows based systems and have caused many Windows users to switch over to using other operating systems. I am going to be focusing on GNU/Linux (hereafter referred to as Linux) because of its availability and the concepts and ideas about viruses in Linux apply to other Unix based operating systems such as Mac OS X. Historically, users of Linux have had virtually no issues with spyware, viruses or other malware. Many have thought it was just because they did not have a large enough market share to attract malware authors but the reality is that Linux is so fundamentally different from Windows that it is much more resistant to virus or spyware infections and other forms of malware. Security holes in Linux and Windows Security holes are not unheard of in Linux but they appear less often and are less severe than security holes in Windows. First let's compare the default web browser of most Linux distributions (Firefox) with the default web browser of Windows (internet Explorer). Since we just want to know why Windows has more malware than Linux we will focus a single time period and see what security problems the two browsers had in that time period. Firefox 1.0 was release in November of 2004 and on May of 2005 version 1.0.4 was released. Each of the four minor revisions was to address security issues. In the same time frame Microsoft released 20 major patches to IE, most of which were rated "critical" (Livingston). These critical security problems meant that malware could be installed automatically on a Windows machine if the user just clicked on a link. A company by the name of Scanit did a study of the amount of time it took Microsoft to release a patch for a vulnerability once it became public. "The firm found that IE was wide open for a total of 200 days in 2004, or 54% of the year, to exploits that were "in the wild" on the Internet (Livingston)." That meant that any script kiddy could download some html, upload it to a website and every person that visited that site could be compromised 50% of the time, even if they had installed the latest Windows updates. Firefox had a few security problems of it own, even to the point where code could be executed remotely but in every case a patch was issued before the security problem was made public. The exploits were always written after the problem had been fixed. Everyone remembers the Sasser and Blaster worms that infected millions of Windows machines overnight using security vulnerabilities in the DCOM protocol which is hardly ever used by desktop computers and is enabled by default. Linux has about 10 total worms all of which were released weeks sometimes months after patches were issued for the security holes the worms used (Moen). Very few Linux machines were even vulnerable to the worms because most of them targeted the BIND name server which is only used by Internet servers. Actually, none of the worms would have been able to compromise a desktop system unless it was running some server software.

Answer 2

While there have been a couple "proof-of-concept" viruses for Linux, few have ever been found in the "wild." The diversity of Linux distros, each with unique kernels and slightly different userlands, along with usually enforced user privilege separation, secure package management, and rigorous code auditing make propogation of a Linux virus so difficult as for the risk to be negligible. Users should still practice secure computing concepts, such as not running as root constantly, and not have unneeded network services, but they do not need to run anti-virus software (unless on a mail or file hosting server).

To put the risk in more human terms, the risk of getting a virus on an online Windows machine without an anti-virus is about the same as that you will receive spam email. The risk of getting a virus on an online Linux machine without an anti-virus is about the same as that of hitting the PowerBall lottery number twice.

Answer 3

No, it's not. May Linux users doesn't even use any anti-virus protetion, because virus-makers mostly often want to get his virus reach as many people as possible. So, most viruses are written for Windows because it has a higher ammount of users. And, Linux users are often more 'advanced' PC-users, so they know hoe to protect.

Answer 4

Yes, Ubuntu can get viruses. Before you cancel on hitting the big orange Download button on your other browser tab, know that Ubuntu getting a virus is less probable than you getting struck by lightning. Also, Ubuntu viruses are much less severe than Windows because Linux is just more secure. The virus would need your password to delete anything important. It's perfectly safe.

XP is no longer supported, yet many older computers cannot be upgraded, because the hardware cannot cope with the memory and disk requirements of newer versions of Windows. Ubuntu can easily and safely be installed on such older machines.

GNU/Linux has been temporarily vulnerable to about 100 known viruses over time, but the next updates were soon immune to them. The Linux community has also developed procedures to protect their users from new viruses. If you stick to software from the Ubuntu distros, you are safe.

Contrast this with Windows, which has been infected with over 60000 different viruses, many of which can still currently infect the OS, unless an optional anti-virus detection program is running and up-to-date. Keep in mind that Windows has been infected simply by clicking on a browser link, and some vulnerabilities were not resolved for months or even years.

Answer 5

Linux (and other unix-like systems) were designed from the ground up to be secure and allow secure multi-user access and networking. One of the reasons why the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems have so many security holes is that it was originally designed as a single-user system and much of the security has been bolted on as an afterthought. This means that many more (and more severe) holes will exist.

There are actually viruses for linux, but they are generally far less effective.

Answer 6

Linux systems generally cannot be infected by Windows viruses. A virus could potentially affect Windows programs used on a system with Wine installed, but the damage would generally be limited to the Wine directory and would not impair native programs.

Answer 7

no Linux is a software with built in security in all if it has a treat it will let you know plus it uses Mozilla Firefox witch scans all downloads for viruses anyway so it is a pretty safe software so their is no need for any antivirus software. But if you want any you can go to software center and download one if you want.

Answer 8

yes,any kind of computer can get a virus.