secure OS???

[RoadClosed]

Huh, true there is Tempest. Make sure that that PC not connected to a network; is shielded in a grounded copper room. Then placed in the middle of the floor on non conductive risers, then shield the Box and monitor in Tempest proof boxes. And you might have that one covered. Still have the human element to contend with though.

PS. That might stop microwave espionage too unless someone can figure out some resonant component of the wall...

[2pumpChump]

Originally posted here by catch
[B]
Barring physical security? So in other words you mean it is 100% secure from network attacks. It isn't secure from users, administrator errors, malware, or TEMPEST.

In other words, it is 100% secure from everything but threats?

So how do I secure my servers from the threat of a metor smashing into earth? I see you live in CA, as do I. So how do I secure it from earthquakes toppling the building down on them? HOW do I secure it from the prediction that california will break off and fall into the Pacific?

Just curious since you wanted to be specific and take my origional post out of context.

[catch]

So how do I secure my servers from the threat of a metor smashing into earth? I see you live in CA, as do I. So how do I secure it from earthquakes toppling the building down on them? HOW do I secure it from the prediction that california will break off and fall into the Pacific?

Hmm I actually wrote a tutorial on Risk Management for this site as well that covers all of this. All of these risks can be mitigated if need be, via safegaurds and/or insurance.

Just curious since you wanted to be specific and take my origional post out of context.

Out of context? What was the context of your post? it was a silly childish remark that demonstrates no knowledge of security and added no value to the topic at hand.

I was making the point that reduction of functionality != greater security... though sometimes the two go hand in hand.

catch

[PuReExcTacy]

Originally posted here by riya_here
which is the most secure OS, that is, not easily prone to crash!!

If your interested in an OS that will take a beating and still ask for more with a smile. Looking into one of the *BSDs. Dont believe me, check out this link http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html , that's from netcraft survey, you'll be able to see the servers that have the longest uptime. Some of these servers have been up for years. What do they all have in common?



--PuRe www.pureescape.net

[catch]

PuReExcTacy makes a good point and provided a nice resource defending tha stability of BSD, I in fact have two BSD systems pushing 600 days uptime and both of these systems are pushed to about 90% of capacity for a good 11 hours per day. (Remember that much of Yahoo and for a long time much of Hotmail, two of the busiest sites on the net ran on BSD)

However... the uptime data on netcraft isn't quite that useful... it doesn't do a very good job in considering load balancing clusters. This is why many never down systems have such low uptimes. Systems like NT can have very high uptimes as well (one of the test servers at my work is just passed 18 months as well), however when these systems are clustered, the admins can be lazy and just reboot the systems after changes rather than using the live update tools and other "tricks" to set system changes without rebooting.

As a side note... there are various VMS systems at tech colleges around the country featuring uptimes of around 20 years. (NT of course was based off of VMS )

BSD's biggest weakness is in other aspects of security, nearly every other OS, Linux, Solaris, NT, MVS, etc have high security/high assurance extensions availible for them. the best BSD has is Trusted BSD/FreeBSD 5.x and these are, in my personally and professional opinion, highly suspect in design.

catch

[2pumpChump]

Originally posted here by catch

Hmm I actually wrote a tutorial on Risk Management for this site as well that covers all of this. All of these risks can be mitigated if need be, via safegaurds and/or insurance.


Out of context? What was the context of your post? it was a silly childish remark that demonstrates no knowledge of security and added no value to the topic at hand.

I was making the point that reduction of functionality != greater security... though sometimes the two go hand in hand.

catch

Excuse me, risk managment and mitigation are themselves != to security. Risk managment is identifying a problem before it occurs and devising ways it *mitigate* them if they were to occur.

Neither of which makes any improvement in security at the OS level. And to call a tongue in cheek comment like my first post "childish" is in itself childish. Further more your blind assumptions about my knowlege of security again is a childish remark which only added to your obviously self promoted ego. It also added nothing to the topic at hand which you so hypocritically pointed out.

[RoadClosed]

Aghhhh my old night mares are coming back. Many a sleepless nights hacking away at monchrome consoles trying to bring up ailing PDPs. Agghhhh. Of course that was YEARS ago but the hatred is there and ingrained. Just sharing a funny look at VMS. After being awake for 3 days straight you tend to visualize ectreme prejudice in your captors.


I think this thread has accomplished it's goal and the orignal question was answered. IMHO, some of the negative comments are taken out of context. Smile and go grab a coka cola. Get out of the NOC/'puter room and Take in some sunlight.

[darkes]

Slightly off topic, but how about this for a secure system? Can't remember the source of this quote I'm afraid .......

"The University of North Carolina has finally found a network server that, although missing for four years, hasn't missed a packet in all that time. Try as they might, university administrators couldn't find the server. IT workers tracked it down by meticulously following cables until they literally ran into a wall. The server had been mistakenly sealed behind a drywall by maintenance workers. "

[ghost alexia]

love roadclosed true enough no o/s is truly safe however have one quick question am not used to working with meneed a ghost surf or set of proxy servers that will not change settings and a 1024 encryption for ie if possible that will still let you into msn or that can be disabled easily to go in not my usually o/s sooo...plz assist