Is Windows more secure than BSD/Gnu/Linux/UNIX?

I'm going to agree with cacosapo on this. The majority of linux exploits (even if in script form) are going to require more to them than just compling, running, and exploiting. Some scripts released are fscked and thus require someone who knows how to code to fix a line or two (sometimes a purposeful sytax error to kep kiddies away). Other scripts require the user to compile in a manner not common to them (compiling in the first place will eliminate a majority of script kiddies).

And even further, while some kids can run : hackmeexploit 12.54.15.121 on windows and have the exploit work, the majority of scripts I've noticed for linux requires something like: hackmeexploit -c -u 12.54.15.121 due to the amount of options that exploit has avaliable and the nature in which most people program in linux.

So while exploitation may be possible still in Linux, I think it is naturally more difficult a process to understand while being a kiddie in *nix enviroment and would push even more of them away. Why? Just a theory, but they are already using scripts because they want to get a goal accomplished the fastest way possible with the least amount of work. And if they have to follow specific instructions, change code, or anything else other than direct use of the script... chances are they put it down and go on with their IP scan.

Hmmm, I think I'll refer to the elders on this one. ;)
"Another thing no one has mentioned is that 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." ~ catch

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=248489

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
Hmmm, I think I'll refer to the elders on this one. ;)
"Another thing no one has mentioned is that 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." ~ catch

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=248489

---

del /S /Q C:WINNT *.*

What was that again ? ;)

Or del C:\.... You know where I'm going with this lol.

format /Q /X C: would go AMAZINGLY fast.

So does rm -rf * as root (and I've had to recover a live production Oracle box when a Prof did this, forgetting he was at / and was root -- no joke!)

LOL!

But the idea behind del and deltree /Y C: *.* is that most people can figure out what format means, but only people who've used DOS know Deltree ;)

Either way though, NT won't keep logs after that happens, as nothing else will either unless you've got another machine hooked up that keeps some sort of history of the other machine.

Now, back to my original intent of this thread:

How can ANY OS be more secure than SUSE Linux?

The OS lets you not only shut down services, but allows you to download and install ALL security and bug related fixes BEFORE the thing even boost up for the first time. How can anyone compete with that without stealing the idea?

It seems to me an OS that is patched, updated, and configured before a boot up has even occured would be mighty hard to root.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens
So does rm -rf * as root (and I've had to recover a live production Oracle box when a Prof did this, forgetting he was at / and was root -- no joke!)

---

That takes a wee bit longer though. Heh, I've done that before, and cfdisk is always faster. Then you just reboot the machine.

That person you're talking about shows the importance of pwd and sudo :)

Quote:

---

How can ANY OS be more secure than SUSE Linux?

---

By having someone at the helm of the machine being smart and slightly paranoid or being stupid. Suse may do that but if someone installs all of the services, even if they don't use them, they are opening themselves up. On the flip side I can take a slack box, not install services, lock it down before it connects to the internet, then update and continue on my merry way.

Quote:

---

It seems to me an OS that is patched, updated, and configured before a boot up has even occured would be mighty hard to root.

---

Hard maybe but not impossible. If we propogate the idea that security is entirely based on the OS rather than the person that administers it, IMO, we are creating a false sense of security for the person that follows because they will "assume" (that awful word) that the OS will "do it all for them".

Quote:

---

That takes a wee bit longer though. Heh, I've done that before, and cfdisk is always faster. Then you just reboot the machine.

That person you're talking about shows the importance of pwd and sudo

---

Not on solaris 7. Worked fairly quickly from what I remember of the panic phone call... And he was showing them how rm worked. Idiot shouldn't have been root. This gets back to the fact that the local admin there (not me) shouldn't have given that account out and should have created a specific account for the prof. Or had the prof install Solaris on his own play box to do demos for the students. That instance is an example of poor access controls, which sucked in this case, regardless of which OS was being used.

OK, so what about someone like me who installs SUSE custom, and SUSE, which has all services, well most of them, which would include X, shut down by default, then updated with all patches, and the thing hasn't booted yet. Upon boot up the machine is already locked down, updated and even hardened. harden_suse comes with it as well as the other, Bastill.

So that would make my machine and every other machine I've helped people install on fairly secure, not even including the two routers on my desk.

For the other reply:

Someone was "showing" someone how rm worked as ROOT????? It bothers me I can't get a job in IT up here, but someone like that can :(

Ah well, DC here I come... In the spring ;)