78% of Linux Users Never Been Hacked - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: 78% of Linux Users Never Been Hacked

  1. #11
    My linux box got hacked once..

    but it was because my missus cracked the sads and attacked it with a hammer and flat head screw driver..
    I got pictures any one wanna c 'em?

    f2b:.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    78% of Linux Users Never Been Hacked

    NT retains its logs after a full system compromise, Linux does not. (that pesky failure to segregate admins and operators keeps biting them in the ass) So a much larger percentage of successful Linux compromises go undetected.

    *echo*

    I left a FreeBSD box open all night after a fresh install because it was getting late, the next day I figured I would arm it. I saw a jacked up UID :#: in a paranoid guess I figured it was tainted and proceeded another fresh install. I don't remeber excactly what I saw that tweaked me I was still just starting to read the O'reilly "safe" book at the time. So I'm in a draw it was 'prolly nothin.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,302

    By stepping stone I mean using the first box to crack other boxes. There are a few reasons for wanting to do this:

    1. University often have more bandwidth then other machines, so some forms of attack will be faster.
    2. It obscures your identity.
    3. It gives you a place to store your tools and data.

    The reason Linux makes a better stepping stone then Windows is because many of the best security tools/exploits are written for Linux first and remote interactivity is a lot more easier. Windows has telnet and SSH, but there are not as common or as useful as they are on a *nix box.
    I know what a stepping stone is, my question to you is still the same how the hell can a *nix box be better than a Windows box. I know Universities that run Windows, and I know Universities that run *nix. As far as tools, there aren't many tools that you can get for one that you can't get for the other. So there once again. How is a *nix box better than a windows box?

    Give me one reason why a comprised Windows box is better than a comprised Windows box.

    Give me something, because in all my reading, I haven't found any real reasons, I mean **** most things that *nix has Windows can get, and there are somethings, that are easier to do on a Windows box.

    So give me some info, let me know what you know, that I somehow missed in all my reading. I guess I must of skipped that in all my *nix books, and hacking books, and tutorials.

    Please pretty please, explain.

    In any case that you can't, walk away now, before I start qouting books.

  4. #14
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Give me one reason why a comprised Windows box is better than a comprised Windows box.
    Because it's a Windows box?
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  5. #15
    King Tutorial-ankhamun
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    897
    1. Remotely manipulating the box is easier because SSH or Telnet on a *nix box is far more flexible then the alternatives on a Windows box (in my opinion at least).
    2. Most *nix boxes will have compilers on them so you can compile your tools there if you so wish.
    3. More *nix box then Windows boxes will have easy ways of transferring files (via FTP or SFTP).
    4. A lot of exploits are written to be compiled in *nix environments, while you an use Cygwin on the Windows box why bother?

    Iím not attacking *nix, Iím just saying *nix boxes make better attack boxes over all. I donít understand why you seem to be getting upset about that statement.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,302
    I am not getting upset. Don't take it personal, I am just finding way to many people saying something without any facts to back it up. Part of the time, just shearly saying opinion. I feel that opinion isn't always the best way to show or say something.

    Now, if what you were saying is all opinion, ok. I won't say anything, but if what you were saying is fact. Elaborate. Explain to me where I am amiss, in not getting 10,000 *nix zombie boxes.

    I am just clearly trying to understand what you are talking about. Because to be honest, I am still lost. Everything that you have stated so far can be done on a Windows box. I can get a FTP up on a Windows box, I can download a compiler on a windows box.

    As far as SSH and Telnet on a *nix box being more flexible, what do you mean by flexible?

    Ever heard of putty. I love that program.

    So at this present point, you still have not made one point as to how *nix boxes are better as a stepping stone.

    Please show me where I am amiss, give me a link or something. I never have a problem being wrong.

    So please make me wrong.

    So far, you haven't shown me one thing that can't be done on both.

  7. #17
    King Tutorial-ankhamun
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    897
    Itís just my opinion. You are right that you can do all of this with a Windows box, but itís easier to do with a *nix box because many times the tools will already be there. In *nix you can do everything from the command line, but in Windows thereís a lot off stuff that you need the GUI for and if you donít have terminal services/remote desktop or VNC on the box that can be hard (and all those GUI apps take more bandwidth then SSH).

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,302
    That I will give you.

    Actually there are somethings that can't be run from the command line on a *nix system, well atleast a RH one.

    Try to start a service like, start up the apache server on RH9. You have to use the GUI system. Which ****ing erks the hell out of me.

    I am still looking for the perfect command line distro, so I don't have to even install the GUI part.

    That and I am still looking for a command line calculator, I think I am going to have to write one myself.

  9. #19
    Antionline's Security Dude instronics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    901
    Originally posted here by whizkid2300
    That I will give you.

    Actually there are somethings that can't be run from the command line on a *nix system, well atleast a RH one.

    Try to start a service like, start up the apache server on RH9. You have to use the GUI system. Which ****ing erks the hell out of me.

    I am still looking for the perfect command line distro, so I don't have to even install the GUI part.

    Please say that your joking?

    You can run EVERYTHING from the command line in *nix
    Unless ( i have to admit i never tried RH) RH is really that bad..... other than that, ive set up servers on many different *nix styles, using only the command line. Apache, squid, vsftpd, postfix, firewalls, IRCd's, BIND, webmin, sshd, telnetd, fingerd, everything on a system which does not even have a GUI installed.

    Can someone with some more RH knowledge than me say anything about this?


    /edit

    If its true that RH needs a GUI to start services, then RH is a disgrace to all *nix systems. I cant imagine it.

    Cheers.
    Ubuntu-: Means in African : "Im too dumb to use Slackware"

  10. #20
    King Tutorial-ankhamun
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    897
    I seem to recall on my RH 9 doing a:

    /etc/init.d/httpd restart

    to restart the web server.

Posting Permissions

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

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides