Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Linux--Unsecured

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002

    Post Linux--Unsecured

    I got a article in my e-mail titled 'Did Linux Lose a Marketing Opportunity'. In the article it says that the reason Linux O.S.s are not hacked as M.S. based O.S.s is because Linux only has 0.2% share of the desktop world. It sounds to me also that it is saying that that is the reason linux is more secured than m.s.. Gee, I thought it was because linux can be made more secured. Well, here is the link.


  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    That is only one argument from one side of a long and on-going debate of Microsoft vs. Linux. Even though Linux is used less often as a desktop OS, various distrobutions of *nix are used for secure and stable computing; varying from McDonald's to web servers and routers. The statement that only 0.2% of desktops use Linux may be accurate, but if you take into account the amount of other *nix operating systems that are in use for other purposes besides desktops, and also the severity and reliability demanded from those computers, that specific argument is more of a toss up.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    nah........blah blah...seesm to be this article is M$ funded

    Linux can be made very secure....just a lil task for the admin...those persons who have seen RH 9 wuld agree with me.....the default firewall installtion is gud enuff...

    though they arugument may come if linux can be made secure why not M$ .... m$ can also be made secure..but what u gonna to do abt those blah blah holes the IE that is used by every everyone....and once some1 in the corporate LAN is 0wned....the whole LAN is @ stake...
    guru@linux:~> who I grep -i blonde I talk; cd ~; wine; talk; touch; unzip; touch; strip; gasp; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; gasp; umount; make clean; sleep;

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    I would tend to agree that the reason more virii and holes are found for MS than Linux or Mac OS or any other OS for that matter is the fact that most people out there use MS products. All OSs can be made pretty secure not 100% but pretty close if the person operating it knows what they are doing. You buy a computer and it usually comes with windows and in the hands of granny that reads email and installs every cute thing she finds without thinking it may affect her operation of course it is easier to hack windows or fool the windows user. It is not always the case and if you take a person that doesn't know anything about linux and doesn't patch his/her OS then Linux is just as vulnerable.

  5. #5
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    I think your all also forgetting, Linux comes with the code it runs on for EVERYTHING. If Windows code was available, imagine how many MORE bugs could be found. OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, All open source, You can look through the code for holes yourself. Yet still Windows has more.

    That should tell you something in itself. Realease Windows 2000s code and see how many patches youd be needing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    There's a small team fixing windows all the time while a zillion people are buisy fixing linux. Exploit archives for linux are usually bigger then linux's. Because windows is the most common desktop os and everyone knows about it, it's more often targetted. "scriptkiddies" who don't have a hell of a clue of what's going on and only got a pc with windows xp and look arrouind for "hackers" will easily find things like sub7 wich they can use on all their friends. Not many people use linux on a desktop (if you look at the ammount that uses windows), but those few often have more knowledge on how to secure it all. Also it is often not the os, but the programms on it and even more often the lack of knowledge of the admin, that makes the insecure computer. A windows server can be as secure as a linux server. Linux has a bit more potential because it was designed as a networking os from the start. Newer versions of windows are to though. It's imo not really a matter of security, but rather of taste. Newer versions of most popular linux distro's try to look like windows. Windows is build for GUI from the start, linux isn't. That doesn't mean windows rules the GUI arena.
    For the few that actually read hacking exposed. If you read the chapter or whatever about hacking windows 9x it says there's almost no vulnerabilities because windows 9x wasn't build for the net. I remember the only things they mentioned was netbios (that is one against security, but a few for easy of use) and possible trojans like sub7 netbus etc. By default there is no vulnerability because windows doesn't auto-enable filesharing. I hear of some linux distro's the do enable everything at a default install. Ssh (or telnet even) ftp vnc http all kind of demons that cause a possible risk. It's true though, those things are not part of the os, but they are part of the default <insert distro name here> linux install. All networking enabled os's have the chance to be "as secure ass possible" and windows 2000 has proven it's power to.
    I don't want to be all windowish, but because most people are *nix it's the best way to show my point. Altough some os's 'have better potential' it's more about the admin and the software. If you have apache 0.003 beta - and you refuse to update it doesn't mather what os you have.
    **** why the hell did I type so much...
    Double Dutch

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts