-
July 31st, 2004, 02:56 AM
#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:.
-
July 31st, 2004, 04:41 AM
#12
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.
-
July 31st, 2004, 06:28 PM
#13
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.
-
July 31st, 2004, 06:35 PM
#14
Give me one reason why a comprised Windows box is better than a comprised Windows box.
Because it's a Windows box?
-
July 31st, 2004, 06:48 PM
#15
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?
I’m not attacking *nix, I’m just saying *nix boxes make better attack boxes over all. I don’t understand why you seem to be getting upset about that statement.
-
July 31st, 2004, 07:12 PM
#16
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.
-
July 31st, 2004, 07:21 PM
#17
It’s just my opinion. You are right that you can do all of this with a Windows box, but it’s 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 there’s a lot off stuff that you need the GUI for and if you don’t have terminal services/remote desktop or VNC on the box that can be hard (and all those GUI apps take more bandwidth then SSH).
-
July 31st, 2004, 07:36 PM
#18
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.
-
July 31st, 2004, 08:38 PM
#19
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"
-
July 31st, 2004, 08:48 PM
#20
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
-
Forum Rules
|
|