Printable View
I agree with everything said above, except this:
This is similar to me asking you why you are wearing clothes inside of your house? Are you afraid of a mole? Is there some hair you don't want people to see? Moral of the story: Just because people enjoy privacy does not mean they are hiding something. Privacy isn't just about hiding, it's a psychological state in which one can feel comfortable being alone with themselves.Quote:
The next question is, what are you tying to protect?
I never said if anybody is hiding something. Rather I am asking "Is all that security worth all the work?" If yes, goodie. If not, ignire it. That is just me, but hey, who gives a **** about what I think? heh
I do, and many others :) To each their own of course, and since you put your comments in a new light for us to see (and thus a new question) I can see where you are coming from.Quote:
That is just me, but hey, who gives a **** about what I think? heh
It's just how different "Is all that security worth all the work?" and "The next question is, what are you tying to protect?" those two are from one another.
But, to answer you "Is all that security worth all the work?", it's simple. As a computer user you have a responcibility to keep your box secure, clean, and solid. Why? Because if your box is infected and spreads viruses, if it suddenly becomes an IRC zombie for a massive DDoS attack, or is hijacked and then used to breech and FBI computer, it suddenly lands in your lap. Why didn't you make sure other's couldn't use your computer for harm?
This is similar to having a gun, and hanging it up on the wall without any sort of security or protection. You wouldn't want your little daughter to blow her face off, so why allow your computer to shut down yahoo.com or be the base for another Sasser virus?
Just about resoncibility as a computer user, and of course just my opinion
Preface: I'm a unix systems administrator of 8 years. Hence why my comments may sound a little leaning towards *nix. I've used everything of windows since 3.11 onward, back in the days of the cpl files, the DOS shell powering the whole show, and upwards to XP SP1 now.
Now, all that said, I'm not here to fuel any particular side. I've learned more about security since I've joined this site from the various members who are way more adept in their fields than I'll ever be. I used to be a linux zealot and proclaimed that windows sucked and that it always will and it won't change, etc...
I've seen two things happen in the past few years. I've seen linux distros look more and more like windows with GUI interfaces, a much simpler and cleaner install package that anyone smart enough to move a mouse could figure out, and overall more people trying it out. I've also seen MS come to the table more in their effort to make Windows better. In some ways, it's amazing how far they've come (and you can see this with various areas in XP) and at the same time, some things haven't changed that much.
Windows, in its base form w/o special packages or third-party programs, does not "serve" anything to the internet. One might consider Netbios a service, but that's more or less for sharing and I don't call that a real service. In that aspect, it should be more "secure" than linux, because linux has (with all packages) things like apache, sendmail, a telnet server (shudder), ftp server with default permissions/etc, and other things that make it talk a lot more.
Windows behind a configured home router with default passwords changed, updated, and netbios turned off can be just as secure as a linux box set up correctly with services disabled that aren't used, correct application configurations, etc...
It's in the eye of the admin and if their box gets compromised because of a known service port not being used is exploited, then that's the admin's fault. If it's because of something specific to a program, it's not necessarily the fault of the admin. I can't do anything in concern with IE. It's tied into my windows XP box whether I like it or not, it's having more bugs and exploits found than sendmail EVER had (and that's saying a lot because sendmail had some serious problems in the beginning), and I have to hope and trust that IE, a program that MS hasn't improved in the past two years, will be updated and patched and I really pray then that their patch doesn't break something else (as has been shown repeatedly with MS patches).
With linux, I'm more comfortable because it is Open Source and that means I can do something with it. That's not to say that *nix programs are more secure than windows. On the contrary, when you have OS progs, you're giving the farm away and anyone can dissect your program into tiny pieces and find every problem that exists with that current version or release. However, stuff can be done if one wants to...whether it's break it or make it better. I like that. I like knowing that there are OS win32 programs and forums for those that develop them...I really like that because the whole MS closed-source from the start thing just had me irritated for years because of my frustration to want to make a program they have rights to better and more secure. Now it's turning around and others are changing their programs to OS. That I believe in more than an operating system choice.
Give me a choice, whether it's windows or linux and I'll choose linux by default because I can do what I want, how I want, when I want....the freedom is there. However, give me a windows box and I can do a lot in the same direction, but I'm not able to do everything I'd like. That's ok though as long as I can do something to make my life as an admin easier.
I don't agree with things that people put out where "operating system XYZ IS TEH BEST BECAUSE!!!!!1111" nor do I agree with websites who flaunt something about their program or whatever saying it's better than competitor XYZ with no proof. Especially in the light of glaring issues, bugs, exploits, or the like with said program...
Give me whatever, I'll work with it to make it better and secure...after all, it's all about the gaming!
above excellent post from Vorlin show us a lot of "points" that make some guys love one and hate other O.S.
I.E. on the opposite way, I hate to take care of systems that allow "too many changes" from the standard way. Just because of this: When you need to take care of hundreds of servers (and thousand of stations) you really dont want that local admin starts to "customize" the O.S.... you want that every server looks the same, has the exactly same parameters, etc..
But i do like linux because i can customize it at home....
Windows, the way that it "plugs" on hardware and turn installations "easy" is a pro. Of course, sometime it doesnt work and its a pain ....but most of the time its works. And save time... When you find a problem and starts to google (or go to MS) and find a solution, you can (most of the time) apply the same solution WITHOUT modification to your system.
On linux i have other experience.
"find a solution"
"oh i need the recompile some routines"
"damn ive changed other routines that affects this one and it wont work"
"start to find a solution for the new problem"
"and so on"
OR
"hum that solution applies to slackware but it wont work exactly on conectiva distro. Damn, i need to adapt the solution"
at 3:00 am? i dont like it.
Some stats: (from my clients portfolio)
99% percent of small business i use to deploy linux as servers (including fw)
70% of large companies dont want linux anywhere
90% percent of all clients i use to deploy windows as workstations.
I just hate both O.S. :)
The way I see it an OS is secure as the one running it. Like its been said before I have windows XP and its prolly more secure than my Red Hat Linux.
As for the virus thing. Like Enkrypt This said windows has more viruses because more people use it.
Ya, I'm understanding this more and more. I used to be on the "Windows is Microsoft crap and it's their fault that there's so many viruses and that it's easy to hack" bandwagon, but I'm seeing that I was wrong. Microsoft has made a good OS with XP and as with any program there will be flaws. We humans are very prone to this sort of thing. :D These flaws will be, in turn, discovered. It's up to the user to update the computer, not Microsoft. (I must agree with pooh sun tzu in saying that is their duty to update if they have an internet connection so that they are not just spreading viruses and the like.) Linux also has flaws, nothing is perfect. (I've never worked with Linux although I plan to in the near future, but I've read a little on it and some guys at work use it.)Quote:
Regards,
Xierox
P.S. I'm not saying here that I agree with Microsoft's business strategy or anything. From what I've seen (and heard) of it, it's extremely aggresive about holding off compeditors.
Quote:
If I had some good cooling for my boxes, I could easy have my network up for years at a time. Security updates would be installed on one box, then that one rebooted. And then when it came back on, I would update and reboot the others. That is how easy it would be to have a cluster up for years. It still counts as "up" as long as one box stays on while the others get rebooted.
As I run an extremely large farm of Exchange clusters at my work, and also have a fair bit of MVS experience I can tell you the the uptime of a windows clustered system pails in comparison to an MVS system... With windows clustering if you want to move resources from one node to the other the resource is unavailable while it is switched between nodes.. For exchange on an high powered system this downtime is about 4 minutes for a failover.. Not what I would call great uptime.. Add to that the fact that there are still applications being written that have to be installed on the active node, and not the passive node, you get even more downtime... The cluster may be up, but the resources are not available. That is not up to me.
I'd love to see how you would break into a MVS system running RACF... Everything, and I do mean everything, is segmented... Unhackable??? no... but to say that MVS isn't broken into because it isn't in use is also false.. Almost all major banking, telecommunications, and investing firms still use MVS.
One of my clients (the big one) runs MVS/RACF... and is were i born on I/T (VM/MVS System Programmers and RACF Administrator.Quote:
I'd love to see how you would break into a MVS system running RACF... Everything, and I do mean everything, is segmented... Unhackable???
Just to add some info on mohaughn post:
Yes, Mainframes are breakable.
as this: http://www.nigelpentland.co.uk/cracf.htm
how?
Just hiring dumb administrators...
hey!
it is the same problem as Intel, inst it?
Although what I'm saying is totally and completely bashing Windows at the same time I want to say I have given windows a chance I didn't just start bashing it without any experience with it (Notice no security bashes though. I know it can be hardened with 3rd party programs... I do it myself). And, yes I am using it at the moment and it is on my computer at home too (along with RedHat7.2 and OBSD 2.9).
FAULT #1: If windows is so great why does it take up nearly 50% of processing power on a 2.8 ghz processor when it isn't doing anything? (That was before services tweak but, should I really have to do that on a fresh install?)
FAULT #2: XP phone home!?! Need I say more (And I know that can be stopped but that's yet another hoop to jump through)
FAULT #3: How about the outrageous hard drive space it takes? RH can fit a full install and two different GUI's in what 1.5 gigs. Or OBSD which is less then 500mb. Windows with updates is about what 2.5 maybe 3gb. And then there's the memory usage. If you let it Windows alone would use a gig of memory. [What I mean is with my original 512 it used half of that now that I'm at 768 it uses half of that... And I know people at 2g of mem and they say windows uses nearly half of that (This is without anything running)]
Now I could keep going and list some more but I'm at work and should probably go actually do some work.
-_LeeBkr_-
LeeBkr311, you cant compare those like that.
A MAinframe O.S. can run on an Intel machine (Under Linux/Windows in fact). is it better than windows because of it?
Some facts:
1) Windows has a total diferent design from Linux.
2) Windows is a Graphic O.S., so shell is graphic
Linux is command line. so shell is 80 x 24 interface (just like in '70s....)
So shell will expend a lot lot lot more CPU.
Try that: compare KDE and XP. DO everything thru KDE. You will reach ~80-90 percent of WIndows utilization.
3) You dont need 3 GB for Windows. Except if your counting other software, such as Office.
Ive just installed (trying some distro to compare) Slackware complete. 3 GBs.
4) Smoothwall "firewall". it phone home and send info about your config.
5) Memory. Same problem. Compare both at graphic interface. similar memory usage. (except on gaming, that i cant compare since the games that i like to play dont have linux version)
6) My windows XP expend 0% of cpu doing nothing. My Conectiva Linux expend 0% doing nothing. My slackware expend 0% doing nothing.
When it does doing something, it will spend CPU. A/V software perhaps?
Course you can arguee that Linux is better than WIndows xp do run a webserver. Of course, XP wanst designed to do that....
but most of them are not security related. Its (again) a matter of preference.
Lets think about:
if both were free, do you will REALLY recommend to your clients to migrate from a well administred Windows to a well administered Linux?
Odd, my runs at a steady 2%, just like the rest of my installations before I tweak them. If your installation is taking up 50%, you have spyware/adware/a virus. And yes, on the installation of any OS, you had damn well better be tweaking the system.Quote:
FAULT #1: If windows is so great why does it take up nearly 50% of processing power on a 2.8 ghz processor when it isn't doing anything? (That was before services tweak but, should I really have to do that on a fresh install?)
This is a tin foil hat comment. Every single time Windows "phones home" you can tell it not to. Turn it off. Windows Media reports what track is being played every so often, and other minor things. Have you ever actually ran a sniffer to see what it was sending? I don't turn any of it off because my copy of XP is legal, and I don't watch pirated movies. Therefore I'm perfectly fine (Since I did sniff to see what was being sent) with the minor amounts of information they need to make the OS better.Quote:
FAULT #2: XP phone home!?! Need I say more (And I know that can be stopped but that's yet another hoop to jump through)
Sounds like someone who didn't learn how to use windows. The Windows core itself takes only 1.3 Gigs (By the way, a full redhat install is 5.4 gigs, not 1.5) but the additional applications (browser, notepad, wordpad, fonts, calculator, and a plethora of other non OS things). Thus, if you did a typical install of Redhat to give you everything Windows installs at the start, they are the same size. Your entire argument doesn't make sense.Quote:
FAULT #3: How about the outrageous hard drive space it takes? RH can fit a full install and two different GUI's in what 1.5 gigs. Or OBSD which is less then 500mb. Windows with updates is about what 2.5 maybe 3gb. And then there's the memory usage. If you let it Windows alone would use a gig of memory. [What I mean is with my original 512 it used half of that now that I'm at 768 it uses half of that... And I know people at 2g of mem and they say windows uses nearly half of that (This is without anything running)]
OBSD doesn't even come with a calculator for Tao's sake.
And as for memory. My XP takes 79 megs at any given time on it's own, no programs running. Even with Firefox, thunderbird, gaim, and foobar2000 I peak at 90-100. If you are running at 512 or higher then you need to learn how to use the OS. Even at a default, non tweaked installation I hit 100-110 normally. I think your statement is full of crap, because there are herds of people at AO that won't ever see windows use 512(or higher) megs of RAM "without anything running"
Back up "faults" with facts, or you are just another Windows basher that didn't learn it, but only complained instead of tried to solve things.
edit: felt I should expand on this so it doesn't come off as a troll:
1. By learn your OS I mean figure out what makes it work. Figure out why processes may hog your system and how to stop that. Figure out what processrs you need and don't need, and that involves learning what each of them do.
2. Find what programs are the best balance between RAM usage and good quality. Thunderbird uses less of a RAM print than OE and is more secure (In my opinion). Firefox uses more RAM than IE, but less than mozilla. It's like any good system, you have to manage resource usage and allocate proper resources to programs. If one is too bloated, use something else.
3. If you don't like Windows, that's fine. Everyone has their own tastes. But stop complaining and either learn it or drop it.
Below is an attached image of my Windows XP installation, un-tweaked, unenhanced, and unmodified. Firefox 0.9.3 and gaim is running, no services removed yet. Notice my processing usage. 2%. Notice the history of my processor usage, jumping up and down from 1%-5%. Notice the RAM usage, 172 megs in use. Now, that 172 is AFTER eleven days of uptime, no RAM cleaning, no processes modification, no program memory altering, a few games of Morrowind and Homeworld 2, TONs of web browsing, and so forth. If I tweaked my system it would be back down to my comfortable 70-90 megs and even my old 89 days of uptime wouldn't change that.
The point? My processor is not at your 'claimed' 50% when 'unused'. My RAM is not at 512 or HALF of a gig when 'unused'.
Well I am going to be honest here, I haven't read all the posts but I felt that I should post my ideas because well I can... so sit back and listen.
I would like to agree with most people here. It is the computer Admin not the OS that makes a box secure. I believe it was just alittle bit ago I participated in a thread in which we discussed which windows OS was the most secure. After talking with some of the more l33t posters here I realized that some are running on Windows 98 and Window ME OS yet they still have secure boxes. This just proves more of the point that any box can be secure.
Now to the debate that which OS is more secure. You are going to have to look towards linux for this one. Because, although windows CAN be secure it doesn't mean it is MORE secure. I have used linux for about 5 months now and realize that I am still a newb at the linux game but one thing I learned quickly is that with linux you have more control over you OS. So if you know how to you can properly secure it with ease. It seems that, that could be the reason why some people feel that windows is more secure or that linux is more secure because they personally know it.
But let me show you all a different way of looking at OS's look at an OS like an empire. Now there have been alot of secure empires. But it was the King in control of the empire that made is successful or shitty. Now let continue with the empire idea and look at the two different OS's with Windows you have an empire but it is like having an empire with certain boundries saying you can only do this and this. However with Linux you are like supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god. Now, this can be good or bad, if you are a bad supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god then your empire will suck, but if you are a good supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god you will have a long lasting and good empire.
Disclaimer:
I am not trying to debate empires here with anyone it was just an example.
- MilitantEidolon
props to gore! outlook virus spreader express....good one
i think this is funny.....windows does the report itself and claims that it is more secure...at my school a kid got root on the windows server ACCIDENTLY..dont ask me how he did it but he typed something in trying to use netsend and he got root.....
honestly M$ needs to get off of the cloud they are floating on...i have the feeling they are gonna get hit by lightning soon and the Unix community is gonna respond by saying "told ya so"
ps, rambeling
i know any box can be secure but with windows you have to do alot...with linux it is really secure out of the box!...the convience is just easier....but the windows userability is also better.....but with more and more programs being ported and window managers becoming simpler and simpler...i dont think it will be long before linux will be near the same level of windows....yea you still have to know alot in order to install something from source...but with windows you usualy just ran an .exe file and bam u have ur program *with the usual reboot*...with linux you can look at the source code and see what this program does piece by piece.....i think windows is more for lazy ppl who want to "set it and forget it"...linux is for the ppl who want to take the time to install and tweak and test.......and for the ppl who want to know what is going on aswell...
just my thoughts and opnions....
/ps, rambeling
so you know windows ppl im typing this on an xp home machine....its reliable....kinda....
I am rather amazed to see this discussion going so well, without any real flames, or name calling which is something that is far to often what happens when people start to compare OS's. I will have to say a couple things just to clear up a couple facts.
First the size of your install for your system, depends on what your using, if your using Win95 your not going to have a 1.5gig install. I actually think the install is somewhere around 500meg. There are also Linux distros that are friggin huge. If you take a full install of RH9. You are at about 4.5 gig. Which is just ****ing huge.
Though, a linux and Unix distro has a lot more things that come with it, than it's windows conterpart.
As for security, anyone that says straight up, Linux or Unix is more secure, doesn't know there OS. Because, I can pull any Linux Server setup and match it to Win Server 2003, and Win server is out of the box, more secure. Simply because, that Linux and Unix server has a million and one processes running. Everything from SSH, to apache.
Where that Win Server starting services is a lot less. (And those that think I am full of ****. Get a copy of RH9 and Win2003 and see which one is more secure out of the box.) (Best way to do this is to try to hit either box yourself.) I have done this, and I would take Win 2003 over my RH9 if I didn't know how to shutdown services.
Also when debating which is more secure, you have to take into account, something that I don't remember reading in anyone's post so far. The user and company.
If you have User A, which knows nothing about Computers, you don't want to give them a full install of Linux. I would own there box in about 5 mins after they boot up, and connect to the net.
They would be better of full a copy of WinXp, which if I remember correctly gets you to turn the firewall on, in install.
Next when your looking at this from the company ascept, Cheyenne was right, if you take yourself a Windows admin, and change over to Linux. You might as well fire there ass, and get new admins in there. Because unless they are a big hobbyist, and play around with different things, they aren't going to have any ****ing idea how to secure that linux system.
One more thing to think about, when looking at Linux & Unix against Windows. There are hundreads of Linux and Unix distros, there aren't nearly as many Windows releases. So there is bound to be more known about Windows than Linux.
I will say this though, if I had to choose between the 2 and could never use any other computer, to use besides whichever one I choose. It would be Linux or Unix. Only because I hate how the M$ directory setup is. I know this is trivial, but I hate using foreward slash opposed to backslash. That and I love my perl. Can't sleep without perl. (For those of you smartasses that are about to say you can use perl on Windows, I will return with the comment, yeah you can, but just like you can put wheels on a boat, and drive it down the street. It will work, but it's not made to work like that. It was made to be in the water.
With all that said, some of you people need to pick up a ****ing book and read, I am not going to point you out, but there were a couple people that said a couple things that weren't really right, or atleast fully correct.
"Simply because, that Linux and Unix server has a million and one processes running. Everything from SSH, to apache. "
bullsh!t, Very few *nixs have tons of processess running unless you enable them slack,freebsd,openbsd,netbsd....... Redhat is not the only linux/unix. Windowsxp which SHOULD be a secure default install because of its user base. needs plugand play off , netbios off ,dcom off, firewall, antivirus.......)
lumpy take a copy of Free and check and see, along with that try RH, Gentoo, and Suse. Then do the same thing for Win 2003.
Once your done, come back and talk to me.
If you are depending upon the default configuration of ANY program or Operating System, then that is just bad adminship. I don't care if an OS is running 400 services on default. I don't care if an OS is running 0 servers on default. I don't care if an OS requires a starting password or not on default.Quote:
any box can be secure but with windows you have to do alot...with linux it is really secure out of the box!
What I care about is the ability the OS has to allow me to fine tune those settings. I care about the final outcome of the OS, what it is capable of. I care about what I can make it do in the long term. And I most certainly care more about how well it can meet my expectations only after I've given it all of my researching abilities.
There is no room to complain about "default settings" in an OS unless you do not know how to remedy those settings. From RedHat Linux and Suse 9 professional, to Windows XP and Longhorn, each will have things that make them insecure by default and make them secure by default.
Don't live your life off of only accepting 'default' settings, because labeling something for it's 'default' settings is as fair and respectful towards an OS as me saying "You won't ever be smart or well learned in security, because you didn't start that way off when you were five years old". In fact, since you want to argue about OS security in default settings, http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=254589
To everyone else :) Thanks for not letting this turn into a huge flame war. There have been a billion mature comments and levelheaded thoughts going on, to which I deeply appreciate. As always, there are one or two things that needed to be covered and old myths/rumors/31337 lies that needed dispelling. But over all, I have been recommending this post to all of my friends because of the brilliance being displayed.
:rofl:Quote:
OBSD doesn't even come with a calculator for Tao's sake.
pooh, good one man
Corporate level NT clustering technology is just light years ahead of Linux's if you really want to talk about stability.Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
As I run an extremely large farm of Exchange clusters at my work, and also have a fair bit of MVS experience I can tell you the the uptime of a windows clustered system pails in comparison to an MVS system... With windows clustering if you want to move resources from one node to the other the resource is unavailable while it is switched between nodes.. For exchange on an high powered system this downtime is about 4 minutes for a failover.. Not what I would call great uptime.. Add to that the fact that there are still applications being written that have to be installed on the active node, and not the passive node, you get even more downtime... The cluster may be up, but the resources are not available. That is not up to me.
I'd love to see how you would break into a MVS system running RACF... Everything, and I do mean everything, is segmented... Unhackable??? no... but to say that MVS isn't broken into because it isn't in use is also false.. Almost all major banking, telecommunications, and investing firms still use MVS.
*echo*
Getting back to the origin of this thread I don’t think I can really help, and I am not going to advocate one OS or another. But after reading through it several times I would like to make a few comments:
1st) I do not know or have experience with newer mainframes, but using the old ( early 70's ) mainframes as a reference to today’s “modular” systems is like comparing apples to oranges ( not a reference to Apple computers ). I remember sitting in the basement of a state-of-the-art mainframe at a large college ( now a university ) computer center waiting for a printout of my program that ran on punch cards. Getting tired of waiting I went to another room, played what I recall was some type of “space invaders” on a terminal which my “security level” did not have access to, then, when done, went and retrieved my printouts. I never considered myself a hacker ( there was no AUP, etc. at the time, and “hacker” or “cracker” were not a well known terms; ) I just needed something to do while killing time and ignored the other areas of the system that were opened through my efforts.
Points here?
a) old mainframes were not that secure ( I got in with no trouble or effort, and I was only being taught Fortran at the time; the system ran Unix )
b) Time is relative. When I look back at what I did then, and what I would expect now ....
c) I could have graduated with a 4.0 average instead of dropping out in disgust!! ( head hitting wall several times )
2nd) The Grunt saidThis could change, and appears to have already. When I was first introduced to Linux very few used it and it was not very forgiving. Back then the average Linux user was typically a geek looking for a challenge. Then the Geeks demanded more, and contributed support to it, making it grow. It Became more forgiving and more “ user friendly” and changed to something someone would use to call themselves a geek.Quote:
The average linux user is smarter than the average windows user. That's why there are more windows virueses. That and market share.
3rd) I’m not going to debate clusters here, but as far as uptime? Windows 98, IMHO was the best OS M$ ever put out, and I challenge GORE to run a stand alone windows 98 box for six months straight without a reboot and have it respond at the end of the time trial!
The debate at this time over which OS is more secure is fruitless yet needed. M$ entered the arena with intent to dominate the market and spread it to homes ( and thus novices i.e. ignorant users ) for financial gains. If it weren’t for such debates M$ would not be sincere in their current efforts to secure their OS. But the “nix” OSes are now trying to move into that same arena and are becoming more “user friendly”, thus including more and more not-so-intelligent users to gain a market share.
I know I missed several points here, but I don’t have the time to spend here that I would like.
The real question here is who is more responsible? What price to pay for convenience? For profit? As far as I know, M$ OSes can be secured ( I hope, I am using one now ) . But if I target a group of people to use an OS that I created shouldn't I ensure that the OS is acceptable as far as the usability, the functionality and the security that the users require dispite their ignorence?
You supply the hardware, and you're one.Quote:
Originally posted here by IKnowNot
3rd) I’m not going to debate clusters here, but as far as uptime? Windows 98, IMHO was the best OS M$ ever put out, and I challenge GORE to run a stand alone windows 98 box for six months straight without a reboot and have it respond at the end of the time trial!
I'm NOT letting one of my boxes, which could use more cooling, go for 6 months. But you get me like a Pentium, and some good cooling, and I'll take your challenge.
Most uptime on 98 I've seen is about a month. It was shut down so I could install a NIC.
Hell, You never said what I could and couldn't do, so by what you said, I'll reboot it to MS-DOs mode and let it go for a year. Or run just one application. A friend of mine owns a business, he uses Windows 98 machines to run one application for security cams in stores, and those boxes are on all the time, don't get shut down, and do get a decent sized load considering they are recording video 24/7.
Quote:
Originally posted here by MilitantEidolon
Now to the debate that which OS is more secure. You are going to have to look towards linux for this one. Because, although windows CAN be secure it doesn't mean it is MORE secure. I have used linux for about 5 months now and realize that I am still a newb at the linux game but one thing I learned quickly is that with linux you have more control over you OS. So if you know how to you can properly secure it with ease. It seems that, that could be the reason why some people feel that windows is more secure or that linux is more secure because they personally know it.
But let me show you all a different way of looking at OS's look at an OS like an empire. Now there have been alot of secure empires. But it was the King in control of the empire that made is successful or shitty. Now let continue with the empire idea and look at the two different OS's with Windows you have an empire but it is like having an empire with certain boundries saying you can only do this and this. However with Linux you are like supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god. Now, this can be good or bad, if you are a bad supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god then your empire will suck, but if you are a good supreme dictator for like emperor almighty god you will have a long lasting and good empire.
Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows. The best I have seen somebody come up with is that you can mount an entire volume read only or write only... but if you spend the time to set your NTFS permissions properly you can have a file system on windows that is just as secure as the file system on linux... The windows architecture is by it's very nature more secure than the linux architecture... and I can refer you to plenty of government and educational resources to back that claim. And with XP now supporting non-exec processing I don't think your comment that linux has a higher security capability is true at all.. I don't even think the comment about linux being more secure by default is even the case anymore now that XP SP2 is on the scene.
sorry to get side tracked but i want to ask a quick poll
how many ppl here really care alot about security *like me*...but their home networks are the most insecure things you can think of? *also me*
Run in less than 128 MBs of RAM ? Use a 386 ? Not have to use a GUI ? Have a development environment without having to pay ?Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows.
LOL OK I'm done.
79 qualify? ;)Quote:
Run in less than 128 MBs of RAM ?
View the source code. :)Quote:
Originally posted here by mohaughn
Please give very specific examples of what you feel you can do in linux that you can't do in windows.
Isn't that plain dumb ? caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ? That's just dumb !Quote:
how many ppl here really care alot about security *like me*...but their home networks are the most insecure things you can think of? *also me*
What are you talking about?? We can see the Source Code in Windows. Heck, we ever have a copy of it here at AO. Silly goose. :DQuote:
View the source code.
Seriously, what does this discussion resolve? I mean think about why you choose an OS: reasons vary from that's what the company uses to that's what you need to use (since it's the only platform the application you need runs on) to you think it's just damned "thexy". The real question is: are you man enough to secure it or are you a girlie man? :D
More like lazy. Why not secure the home machine? It's a good as any place to practise what you are supposed to be preaching, isn't it? :)Quote:
Isn't that plain dumb ? caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ? That's just dumb !
Why is this a large thing? I know it is a difference yes, and this means you can compile to your liking. But I see this as being as valid as "Windows can use the luna theme without gtk2". Basically a "duh" you know?Quote:
View the source code.
It doesn't have a major difference impact upon the OS in terms of security or usability. I could understand something like "Windows runs on blah kernel components and linux runs on blah kernel components, which makes A more secure than B".
I can see his point though. Similar to me not wanting to get skin cancer but not knowing how the internal fusion of the sun works.Quote:
caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ?
Moreso to see where people stand on the subject, and quite frankly I'm surprised how well it has gone. A lot of linux vs. windows myths have been destroyed and people are viewing them both in a fair and honest light.Quote:
Seriously, what does this discussion resolve? I mean think about why you choose an OS: reasons vary from that's what the company uses to that's what you need to use (since it's the only platform the application you need runs on) to you think it's just damned "thexy". The real question is: are you man enough to secure it or are you a girlie man?
pooh: I wasn't saying it was a big thing, but he asked for something specific that you can do in Linux that you can't do in Windows. Viewing the source is one of them.
*GASP* Does this mean that Piglets are flying now? :D This is a nice change. Perhaps someone could take the time to summarize the "results" as a post and then suggest it to Pedro as an AO Spotlight. :)Quote:
A lot of linux vs. windows myths have been destroyed and people are viewing them both in a fair and honest light.
Results were simple really "An OS is as secure, flexible, usable, and stable as the admin. The more an admin knows about his OS, the more it can do"
That's a rather good challenge, hehe... I was a hardcore, diehard break-it-down-proper MS 98 SE fan because at the time, when XP first came out, it was THE gaming platform. If any of you really know me, you'll know I'm all about computers for one single thing: video games!!!!!! (WOOOOOT!)Quote:
Originally posted here by gore
You supply the hardware, and you're one.
I'm NOT letting one of my boxes, which could use more cooling, go for 6 months. But you get me like a Pentium, and some good cooling, and I'll take your challenge.
Most uptime on 98 I've seen is about a month. It was shut down so I could install a NIC.
Hell, You never said what I could and couldn't do, so by what you said, I'll reboot it to MS-DOs mode and let it go for a year. Or run just one application. A friend of mine owns a business, he uses Windows 98 machines to run one application for security cams in stores, and those boxes are on all the time, don't get shut down, and do get a decent sized load considering they are recording video 24/7.
That being said, you simply COULD NOT abuse Win98SE the way I did in gaming and have it last more than a few days. The only way to make it last longer would be to get 3rd party apps for defrag, memory management, and various other programs as well as have more than 512 megs of memory, and a swap space of at least 2gb (trust me, you WILL use it at some point with Win9x, moreso with Win95 than 98 or 98SE). And that's ridiculous. With 512mb of memory, I should never have to touch swap at all. I could put a stock install of linux anything next to that box with 96mb of ram and it would never hit swap, this with applications like Apache, PostgreSQL, etc...
XP is a different story though and with SP2 out, we'll see how it goes. I noticed that the SP2 is on http://www.fileplanet.com, hah! Nice advertising! Would like to see how many multiplayer games break with the new ICF, hehe...
Disclaimer: this was a post about my personal experiences with Win9x uptimes and the like, nothing else.
on and on it goes...when will it stop nobody knows.
Can we set up a whole new website "whichOSisbest.com" then it can be thrashed out there countless times.
If you want to argue which is the most secure system then I suggest either Mainframe using RACF/ACF2/topsecret, or any B Level OS - Trusted Solaris, Pitbull etc.... oh, and throw in a box using FIPS 140-1 level 4 coprocessors etc..
Isn't this the truth...good to see you contributed another post, ron1n! Hehe!
Although my post wasn't in regards to security (above yours)...just uptime. Windows doesn't the uptime compared to just about any other OS out there.
That wasn't the point of this thread. The point was to put something on the front page other than the suual tech support bullshit I see every day, and actually have a discussion. I think I can assume I've at least done that. And made Pooh happy with a thread on AO. And consideing how many posts are in this thread...Heh, I haven't seen this many replies to a security related thread in quite a while.Quote:
Originally posted here by R0n1n
on and on it goes...when will it stop nobody knows.
Can we set up a whole new website "whichOSisbest.com" then it can be thrashed out there countless times.
If you want to argue which is the most secure system then I suggest either Mainframe using RACF/ACF2/topsecret, or any B Level OS - Trusted Solaris, Pitbull etc.... oh, and throw in a box using FIPS 140-1 level 4 coprocessors etc..
Which OS is better doesn't matter, I got people to take part, and reply in, a thread about something other than someone's computer won't load AOL anymore.
KSOS running a collection of various project software from a NeXTStep inspired GUI to multi level secure aware NFS, HTTP, FTP, and SMTP servers all on PDP 11/70 emulation on a 21364 system. With 3 inch viewable Game Boy monitor! :Ha Ha: :cool: :echo:Quote:
Originally posted here by R0n1n
on and on it goes...when will it stop nobody knows.
Can we set up a whole new website "whichOSisbest.com" then it can be thrashed out there countless times.
If you want to argue which is the most secure system then I suggest either Mainframe using RACF/ACF2/topsecret, or any B Level OS - Trusted Solaris, Pitbull etc.... oh, and throw in a box using FIPS 140-1 level 4 coprocessors etc..
yea it is lazy and i do pratice with one machine....but i just dont worrie about my network...ive got a belkin router so that takes care of most of the sk's...and all i do is download music, work on linux and security *learning*, get help from here, and chat.....who would honestly care about my small nework....if i ever find trojans i get rid of em.....besides i chalange my friends to hack my boxes all the time....they cant get past my router so i dont worrie about it
Quote:
Originally posted here by gore
Run in less than 128 MBs of RAM ? Use a 386 ? Not have to use a GUI ? Have a development environment without having to pay ?
LOL OK I'm done.
hehe.. I guess I should have been much more specific and stated that I wanted to know what you can do in linux that you can't do in windows from a security standpoint.. Although.. I can do just about anything on a windows machine with a CLI.. Just install RCMD and the resource kit, and there are few things that you can't do.. Unfortunately most 3rd party apps have very liitle CLI support... Also, since I am a student and my university subscribes to the MSDN Academic Alliance ELMS program I get almost all MS programs for free as long as I'm not using them for commercial purposes.. So I have WinXP, Office2k3, Project2k3, Server2k3, etc... all for free..
Not really.. One of the key things to remember about security is that the level of security needed is dependent upon the needs of the system. If you have nothing on a system that is of value to you, and you can deal with a break in every now and then, and you have some level of protection in place to prevent yourself from becoming a launching pad for other attacks then why does your system have to be the most secure system around? I'm running a pretty much vanilla install of Win2k with all the latest patches and up to date antivirus, along with a nat router.. I login and do everything as administrator.. I've never had any problems and I don't see myself having problems.. However, if I were to websurf with IE instead of Mozilla I definitely would not login as administrator all of the time... There just really isn't need for me to tweak the security of this system as it is secure enough.. Even if somebody were to compromise my router, they wouldn't get anything as I don't store any important information on my computer.. atleast not in an unencrypted format..Quote:
Isn't that plain dumb ? caring about security and giving advice to other how to secure their home machines etc, but not to have any securiity yourself ? That's just dumb !