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

Quote:

---

[i] Originally posted [

Now, I want a good clean discussion. Flames should be intelligent smart ass comments. Not the crap excuses for flames I've seen lately.

3. I really don't care if you're an MCSE who trained yourself to believe the crap you got spoon fed.

If you don't believe me, take a regular copy of Windows XP, NOT RESTORE DISKS, but just the one CD that Windows XP comes with, and reboot your machine with it, format, and install it.

Windows has :

The Kernel

The User Interface

Windows update

A command prompt

Two text editors

Outlook virus spreader express

Windows Messenger

Windows Media Player

Internet Explorer

Windows Explorer



Linux has :

A LOT

About 7,000 programs. Most of which are optional software, but to be fair, I will strip Linux down to nothing but software that Windows comes with:


Since Windows has the software I listed by default, putting the same type into Linux should be fair, so for one thing :



Strip away everything from Linux except the equivalents of what Windows has:


Kernel

User Interface (Shell) (Which I am NOT listing X, because it's a separate program, unlike Windows, which MAKES you use a mouse, so deal with it)

The update is not the same on every distribution, so I'm not listing one.

Bash shell

Two text editors :

Vi

Emacs

Notepad and Word pad could'nt touch either of these, but again, I'm being fair.

Mutt E-Mail client, which can't spread viruses, worms, or load HTML E-mails, which risks your computer.

Linux also does'nt have an annoying messenger service built in and turned on by default, so I won't list one here. Although I guess you could use "talk" or the mail program.
Xine
Links
Midnight Commander

---

Having not read any previous remarks to this thread( I am feeling a bit lazy tonight )
Hrm welp, let's see here. Microsoft has a dysfunctionall firewall, an overly friendly address book, a penchant for spreading worms, and a history of crappy protocol implementation. But it has antivirus too, and 1 in 3 fails to detect new viruses! That being said, SP 2 is a vast improvement. and SFU has some redeeming qualities.(it's free). In terms of the free software you were talking about...a lot of it runs on windows.

hrm I am an MCSE you know, and the food on the spoon tasted like manure.

Widows, more secure than linux or BSD? that just cracks me up. It's amazing what companies will say when they are paid enough.

Quote:

---

To the whining seniors who bitch about how good AO USED to be, well, here's another chance to have a good discussion, so get off your ass and discuss. [/B]

---

*lifts self off of ass and gets on soapbox.

*FART*

Lave it to Hoofy to point out the obvious.

I have my captain obvious hat on top of my tin foil hat tonight :-D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hogfly
Having not read any previous remarks to this thread( I am feeling a bit lazy tonight )
Hrm welp, let's see here. Microsoft has a dysfunctionall firewall, an overly friendly address book, a penchant for spreading worms, and a history of crappy protocol implementation. But it has antivirus too, and 1 in 3 fails to detect new viruses! That being said, SP 2 is a vast improvement. and SFU has some redeeming qualities.(it's free). In terms of the free software you were talking about...a lot of it runs on windows.

---

Access to the outlook address book was restricted way back in Outlook2k SP2. But even then, that is an office problem, not a windows issue. We are not talking about application vulnerabilities here... Going a bit more into that, MS put additional macro protection and AV protection into Outlook in Outlook2002(over two years old...) If you want to have a productive discussion talking about how things were two years ago is pointless as security is an ever evolving beast that changes weekly.

What antivirus does windows have built in??? I've never seen it, and I can point you to plenty of articles that state why MS has not implemented it yet... 1 in 3 viruses get through without being detected?? Please, state a source. I've been running various flavors of AV for years and I have never had an infection.. And what's dysfunctional about the firewall? It works just as well as any other personnal software based firewall out there.. And vx'ers spread worms.. not an OS..

I think that the main thing that these types of threads can do is dispell the baseless myths that proponents of one OS or the other try to spread...

well let's deal with this one at a time.

yes outlook was "fiixed", that does not stop address books from being pillaged. Hence the overabundance of MM worms, that pilfer the address books of outlook and outlook express. If this wasn't a problem in WINDOWS, then why would microsoft have addressed it in service pack 2 for outlook express? hmm? yes the field evolves daily..just like agobot, but history repeats itself, and microsoft only perpetuates half of the problems. One problem is that not a whole lot in the windows world has changed in 2 years....You can still null session a box, and netbios is still an option and even required in certain domain trust situations.

Microsoft has AV in testing currently, and my statement was directed at the recent bagle.AO(symantec) variant. When this was in the wild, 1 in 3 AV programs failed to detect it. The programs that detected it were listed on the ISC page. The page has been removed because the worm was identified. The simple fact is, if windows didn't suck so much ass, then half of these worms wouldn't be an issue. Note, that I pointed out that Sp2 is a vast improvement...they seem to have gotten it right(sort of). I have tested a number of recent worms against it, and have not had luck infecting it. The firewall? Let's see, how about lack of egress filtering?

baseless myths? They are hardly baseless, and they are hardly myths. Anyone with half a brain would know that.

Baseless myth: Quality discussion can be had in any Operating System A is better than B at C when people ignore the facts.

Having spoken to hog on numerous occasions recently about his work, I'd say he has at least a good feel for how XP SP2 will behave in relation to certain security concerns.

That aside, I do think that it is somewhat improper to count vulnerabilities without considering scope of affected userbase, scope of the vulnerabilities (root-access requiring race conditions are inherently less of a vulnerability than remotely exploitable Secure SHell vulns), time to patch, et. al..

Windows has always been plagued with worms and viruses ever since it has been able to have them. Interconnecting most of the computers on the globe contributes greatly to the number and propogation rate of viruses. Whether it's a right or wrong comparison, were I to switch my computer from say, Windows 95 to XP or to Linux, at the moment, XP SP1 still has many vulnerabilities and issues (even if I updated EVERYTHING), and a greater chance of being hit by a given virus. Compared to Linux, running Windows will prove to be a far riskier proposition in the security sense, and IME slightly less so in the useability sense.

In that light, I'd have to say it falls to your primary concern, and let's face it, for an end user, useability comes over security every day.

Wow, this thread turned out much nicer than my thread on the same thing..probably because gore took a better approach. Mine turned into a flame war.

I would comment, but I'd just be repeating what everyone else has said.

I'd just like to say that if all the good computer games out there were coded for Linux as well, I would trash Windows right here and now.

I didn't read past page 2, so if anything said in this thread makes my post sound incredibly stupid, blame it on my laziness, not my intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by mjk
Wow, this thread turned out much nicer than my thread on the same thing..probably because gore took a better approach. Mine turned into a flame war.

I would comment, but I'd just be repeating what everyone else has said.

I'd just like to say that if all the good computer games out there were coded for Linux as well, I would trash Windows right here and now.

---

Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tux Racer....What more do you need exactly?

As for your thread being a flame war, presentation is everything :)

Chsh has a good point about end users, they don't care about much more than it being able to look pretty and send the forwards they get in Email daily.

Return To Castle Wolfenstein

Vice City!

I'm going to get Unreal Tournament though. Never knew they had it for Linux free.

Quote:

---

If this wasn't a problem in WINDOWS, then why would microsoft have addressed it in service pack 2 for outlook express? hmm?

---

You are still talking about applications and not the OS.. If it was an OS problem it would have been fixed in an OS service pack.. And most recent MM virii have taken to other methods of getting email addresses because it is not as easy to get them from the outlook address book. You also have a huge base of windows products out there that are not patched. This is not the fault of the OS, its a user issue.

The ability of a 3rd party product to pick up and detect a new virus has nothing at all to do with the quality of the OS... If you think linux is attacked less based purely on the "quality" of the OS you are mistaken. I don't want to get to far off topic, but you are talking about things that end up being more of an end user issue, than an issue of the OS. I've still not heard what it is that is wrong with the OS from a security standpoint in comparison with a *nix system. And do realize, I have experience with both systems in corporate networks. I like both systems, and understand, like most people, that the security of the system depends on who is behind the keyboard. If you were running a properly patched system, and don't open untrusted content, the quality of the AV scanner shouldn't matter at all.

Well lets see., More programs in the free area, some better than word and excel. And if a fix is needed it comes in hours not months. The platform once it is set up correctly is as steady as a rock. Did I say more programs? I hope this helps you in your quest.

Quote:

---

And if a fix is needed it comes in hours not months. ... [/B]

---

I would like to see that. On RH? Debian? SUSE? hours? not likely

And talking about support..... as soon as a new release comes the prior one just get abandoned.... try to get a patch for RH 7.x...

Quote:

---

The platform once it is set up correctly is as steady as a rock.... [/B]

---

As Windows. But people just think that Windows is just "Next, next, finished" and never try to go deeply to understand it, in special Registry entries.

Registry is Hard?

Just like tuning Linux

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cacosapo
I would like to see that. On RH? Debian? SUSE? hours? not likely

And talking about support..... as soon as a new release comes the prior one just get abandoned.... try to get a patch for RH 7.x...



As Windows. But people just think that Windows is just "Next, next, finished" and never try to go deeply to understand it, in special Registry entries.

Registry is Hard?

Just like tuning Linux

---

Yea, because if you have RedHat 7.X as a few members here have, you can't download the patch yourself and install it right?

The Registry and configuring Linux are no where near the same. BSD and Linux use plain text files, the registry is a curse from Hell.

Oh...I was one of those poor souls who had RedHat 7.x. :) I upgraded to 9.0, but then I couldn't get the dang updates to finish. I left it sitting a whole day and it never would complete, and that's on DSL...I'm not sure what the deal was, may have been a "User error. Replace user." kinda error.

Anyway, which incarnation of Linux would you guys recommend for an old box with really. really low memory? I have Redhat 9.0 on it now (not the same installation from the prior paragraph), but it's so pathetically low on memory that I could only install text-based Linux, so no GUI for me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
Oh...I was one of those poor souls who had RedHat 7.x. :) I upgraded to 9.0, but then I couldn't get the dang updates to finish. I left it sitting a whole day and it never would complete, and that's on DSL...I'm not sure what the deal was, may have been a "User error. Replace user." kinda error.

---

Have you tried updating Redhat 7.3 or 9.x via the fedora lagacy project?
www.fedoralegacy.org
Supports either APT or YUM
You can find many package updates there.
Not sure of the longevity of the project but for the short term it may suffice..??

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AngelicKnight


Anyway, which incarnation of Linux would you guys recommend for an old box with really. really low memory? I have Redhat 9.0 on it now (not the same installation from the prior paragraph), but it's so pathetically low on memory that I could only install text-based Linux, so no GUI for me.

---

... Run level 3 perhaps?

Type this:

init 3

You could also use a simpler gui such as fluxbox.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by mohaughn
You are still talking about applications and not the OS.. If it was an OS problem it would have been fixed in an OS service pack.. And most recent MM virii have taken to other methods of getting email addresses because it is not as easy to get them from the outlook address book. You also have a huge base of windows products out there that are not patched. This is not the fault of the OS, its a user issue.

The ability of a 3rd party product to pick up and detect a new virus has nothing at all to do with the quality of the OS... If you think linux is attacked less based purely on the "quality" of the OS you are mistaken. I don't want to get to far off topic, but you are talking about things that end up being more of an end user issue, than an issue of the OS. I've still not heard what it is that is wrong with the OS from a security standpoint in comparison with a *nix system. And do realize, I have experience with both systems in corporate networks. I like both systems, and understand, like most people, that the security of the system depends on who is behind the keyboard. If you were running a properly patched system, and don't open untrusted content, the quality of the AV scanner shouldn't matter at all.

---

Considering how outlook express is installed by default in a windows xp deployment I disagree that it isn't part of the OS. IE is also considered part of microsoft operating system and that comes from the horses ass er..mouth. yet it is an "application" . We both know how many problems exist there. If you deny that one, then you lose the right to debate this topic.

Most are pulling it from other files yes. But look here.. Mydoom.P Yes P, the most recent...Item 7. Retrieves the email addresses from the Windows Address Book files. (symantec.com) What the hell does that say? Yes that's right the address book in WINDOWS.

You are right. AV has nothing to do directly with the operating system. yet if the operating system wasn't riddled with issues then agobot wouldn't be at version BAJ.(gaobot.BAJ). Yes this is a user issue because these systems are not patched. However if the operating system didn't use such a backhanded RPC communication system, this wouldn't be a problem. And you don't have to open untrusted content to get infected by worms. They spread by themselves. Considering that AV is required these days as a precaution, I'd have to say it matters a hell of a lot in a windows environment. If windows wasn't a virus breeding ground then viruses wouldn't be an issue. Yes linux has had worms viruses and it has more than it's fair share of rootkits, but I can stick an openbsd box on the net, totally unprotected, and it won't get hacked. if I throw a windows box up without AV and a firewall, and keep netbios enabled, that box will be compromised in 30 seconds to 2 minutes. yes, I have done that testing. As I will continue to point out, SP2 is a vast improvement, and it has already changed my opinion about the security in windows. It's only taken microsoft 20 years.

To be perfectly frank I don't care if you have corporate experience with both. That's pretty much a given in this industry. I wouldn't have these opinions if I didn't admin and maintain linux,bsd,and windows boxes.

People are saying nothing is 100% secure.... what if i have no ports open, no services running, am immune to social engineers, all updated ,and a strong password? Surely thats 100% secure.

Windows is more probable to get malware, but linux is a multi user OS, so somebody could break in and do whatever they want. Doesn't really work in Windows.

Quote:

---

all updated ,and a strong password? Surely thats 100% secure.

---

Updates have exploits too, every password can be cracked, only takes time and porcessing power !

And windows isn't a multiuser OS ? I better delete those other accounts then...tx

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
Oh...I was one of those poor souls who had RedHat 7.x. :) I upgraded to 9.0, but then I couldn't get the dang updates to finish. I left it sitting a whole day and it never would complete, and that's on DSL...I'm not sure what the deal was, may have been a "User error. Replace user." kinda error.

Anyway, which incarnation of Linux would you guys recommend for an old box with really. really low memory? I have Redhat 9.0 on it now (not the same installation from the prior paragraph), but it's so pathetically low on memory that I could only install text-based Linux, so no GUI for me.

---

My answer would be Gentoo, Stage 1. Yeah it's a whole week [if you say yours is really old and low on memory] but I think it could help you get the most out of your box. It's not as intimidating as you might've heard, the install helpfile does wonders [plus the IRC support during install].

Now for my few cents worth... I don't like MicroSoft. Their business practices, their bullshit, the corporate thing. But I still try to be objective when it comes to comparing Linux and Windows, because personal opinions are only important when it comes to choosing what OS you want to use at home.

With the increasing spread of Windows on home and business computers the importance of security hit the unexperienced computer user as a hammer over the hand. From the ocassional grandmother using the computer to send e-mails to the hardrock-listening boy next door, more and more become aware of how easily it is to break into a computer. A computer. So more and more applications that almost anybody can use [no matter how computer-illiterate they are] are developed, many free, to help secure the OS. Except for virii and worms, most intrusions on home-users' Windows machines are made by script kiddies using age-old tools.

Now the fact that the user has no clue on what some of these tools do means the machines might be clobbered and hard to use, which stimulates chipmakers to come out with something new. More money spent in computing power. But that's not necessarily the OS's fault, both Windows and Linux allow the user to secure it if the user is so inclined on doing it.

I agree with gore about the [general] bullshit in those articles, however that's standard marketing procedure, and except for some home users most people know better then to simply trust a marketing survey. Some sys-admins would not want to switch to a Linux environment because they only have their MCSE's and whatnot. They wouldn't feel confortable with a whole lot of new things to learn, when [as far as their job is concerned] Windows is good enough. For others the process of switching would mean losing money, but as already pointed out, the same would happen when switching from Linux to Windows in a server environment.

As for updates I think most large distros take care of updates in a nice manner. I'm biased towards the Gentoo emerge/portage system [:)], but the RedHat one used to do the job well most of the time. However it seems that's not enough, I had somebody ask me what updates are [o.O] and what would you need to do to get them. This was on a sweet Toshiba Satellite laptop with Win XP and a wide-screen... some people shouldn't be allowed computers :S

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Wav
Updates have exploits too, every password can be cracked, only takes time and porcessing power !

And windows isn't a multiuser OS ? I better delete those other accounts then...tx

---

Unless you have XP, 2000, NT, or Windows Server 2003, then no, it is in fact not multi user. Every password can be cracked? hmm, silly me, and here I thought Quantum Encryption was going to be the one.

What the hell is porcessing? I'll say Processing, and assume that was what you meant, even though I don't like making just assumptions. Anyway, I doubt anyone here has a machine in their homes that would be able to crack a password with more than 256 Bit or 512 bit Encryption. By the time it finished the processor would have burned through the board.

Updates... Heh.

He has a point about running no services. I can take a Trustix box, which doesn't have X at all, run NO server applications, pop up a firewall after updating all software, and I doubt anyone would break in. The only reason I picked Trustix over a Windows OS is because in an OS based on Windows you need some services for the machine to run.

All software created by human beings has a possibility for exploitation. Humans make mistakes, and all it takes is a will to want, and someone will exploit it. My Trustix example, I use that because it's made with security i mind, and no one short of the very best Hackers on the internet would get far.


You just can not break into a computer through services it isn't running.

windows NT has a C2 rating with no Network cable.... How the hell that was a big deal I'm not sure as it's a NOS, and no Network cable would sort of kill the point.

I've said before that the most secure program in the world was:

int main()

{

return 0 ;

}

Doesn't do a damned thing but it should compile.

Of course that being the most secure program is a joke, but I've yet to see anyone exploit it.



A little off topic:

I just installed PC - DOS 6.3 on an Intel 2.40 GHz Processor machine with 512 MB RAM and an 80 GB HD. Of course it only looks at 2 Gigs of it, but the damn thing booted!

I had a laugh about it with Horse13 earlier.

Anyway, every peice of code in RAM can be a downfall. I guess in theory you could help secure a machine by shutting down what you don't use. ;)

I love you gore, you're so smart and caught my spelling mistake ! Thank you !

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Anyway, I doubt anyone here has a machine in their homes that would be able to crack a password with more than 256 Bit or 512 bit Encryption. By the time it finished the processor would have burned through the board.

---

I don't know about the CPU, but I sure as hell would be dead by the time that password is cracked.

And what if I make a typo when writing the brute-forcing code? :S

I posted the below quote in this thread earlier today. I have read every post in this thread. (a very good and well mannered thread too) I think I should have read this thread first as my post in that thread may be better discussed in this one. :D

/me dons his asbestos underoos in anticipation of a warm response...

Quote:

---

posted Today 01:13 PM
(post #21)

Ponder this for a moment or two folks. What would we be using right now if Bill Gates/Microsoft had never existed? UNIX existed before windows, and still exists now. In fact MSDOS was based on UNIX, and it eventually evolved into Windows. I honestly believe that we would be using something very similar to windows. We all know that there has to be something that the elderly, or other "digitally challenged" individuals could use to surf the net, and get e-mail on. I have a linux (Slackware) box and a Win2K box. I use the Slackware box for surfing the net , thats it. My windows box is my main computer that I use every day for everything. I am not really sure why I continue to use my linux box (probably just so I can say I have one ) I have not ever been to Best Buy, or Circuit City, or any other software supplier that has any applications, games or otherwise, exclusively for linux. For that matter, I have never played any game that was actually worth a sh*t, except for Unreal Tournament, that will even install on a linux box. I really do wish that all of the *NIX programmers and experts that continue to boast here in these forums and around the world, would actually develop some new and exciting applications and games to back up their views. If these things were available to the world market, like windows, and the games and applications that are now available, I would be the first one in line to purchase them.

---

aeallison, when it comes to general use applications Linux has a pretty good set of tools. You don't think that if I use Linux I don't write .doc files or am unable to view .avi movies. While maybe some of these apps might not posses the eye-candy or ease in installation as their Windows counter-parts, they get the job done in a very similar manner.

As for games you'd have to talk to the programmers working for those companies. It's not likely that a team of freelance coders would just set out on porting Need For Speed Underground out of the blue, infringing copyrights and licences and whatnot. And most of the time those companies don't consider the Linux market as a suitable place for games [with all the costs that go into marketing, porting the game, having different versions etc]. I for one couldn't tell you much about it, I have almost completely stopped playing games so I don't miss them :)

As for your first point I agree there must always be somebody stupid and somebody smart in the world, whatever domain you apply it too. Because it's a comparative scale it's normal to be differences. So it's likely that SCO would've been the top-dog if Gates didn't buy the code from his friend, and Linux the underdog. [:)] Either way, we don't need to speculate because it's of no use. Just like the 'what ifs' in history aren't of any learning value, this too is theoretical. I do understand your point in the sense that it is rather pointless to attack the topdog, but then again things work this way...

hypronix,

Quote:

---

when it comes to general use applications Linux has a pretty good set of tools. You don't think that if I use Linux I don't write .doc files or am unable to view .avi movies. While maybe some of these apps might not posses the eye-candy or ease in installation as their Windows counter-parts, they get the job done in a very similar manner.

---

I am not bashing or defending either OS. I am fully aware that Linux has these "general use apps" that are quite capable of doing everything that windows can do. I am not into the "eye candy" either, I could care less how pretty the app is as long as it does what I want it to do.

Quote:

---

As for games you'd have to talk to the programmers working for those companies. It's not likely that a team of freelance coders would just set out on porting Need For Speed Underground out of the blue, infringing copyrights and licences and whatnot. And most of the time those companies don't consider the Linux market as a suitable place for games [with all the costs that go into marketing, porting the game, having different versions etc]. I for one couldn't tell you much about it, I have almost completely stopped playing games so I don't miss them

---

I am an avid gamer, Need for Speed Underground is one of my favorites. As I stated in my post I would buy it if it were available as would many other people I know. I did not intend to sound like I was trying to organize some group of programmers to crack the code of existing windows software to work with Linux. I do, however, wish to someday in the near future see software that will work with the various Linux flavors. IMHO If the Linux developers would finish what they started so long ago, then the software developers wouldn't have any excuses to not make their games and apps compatable with Linux.

To clarify my opinion on finishing what they started. I have seen countless flavors of Linux on countless different machines, and countless opinions of which one is better by the people who built those machines. I have yet to see a single one that could be used by my 80 year old mother. She has no problems at all with windows and the way it operates. I had to teach her the basics, of course, but I don't think she could get past the login on a linux box reguardless of how many times I try to explain it to her. Is it not possible to build a linux system for the "digitally challenged"? I think it is. I also think it is way past the time to get it done.

Yeah a Linux system for the digitally challenged is easy to build, but it would be no better then a standard out-of-the-box Windows installation in the hands of the same of the same digitally challenged person. That is so because both OSes need to be secured by the user [in the case of home computers] and if there's nobody to at least help out on a kick-start the end result is the same.

No I wasn't thinking you're bashing any OS :) And, NFSU is one of the kickest-sickest-ass games I played too :) yes, on a Win machine, and it's probably the last game I played [though if NFSU2 for PC shows up...].

I can see where you're coming from on the part of the Linux devs, but it has to be understood that on a lot of items they don't get the same support thatWwindows does. Many drivers [e.g. graphics cards] need to be hacked. More and more 3rd party companies seem to be moving out of that sphere of Win-only, as demand increases. But for now we still have to deal with [some] hacked drivers which, although generally work fine, still lack the proper optimization that a driver with the full info sheet gets.

However, when it comes to games, as UT and CS have been ported, I guess more and more games will switch to the OS too. It is, however, an issue since many programmers can't cross-program? Some do, some don't, and habits die hard.

Quote:

---

You are right. AV has nothing to do directly with the operating system. yet if the operating system wasn't riddled with issues then agobot wouldn't be at version BAJ.(gaobot.BAJ). Yes this is a user issue because these systems are not patched. However if the operating system didn't use such a backhanded RPC communication system, this wouldn't be a problem. And you don't have to open untrusted content to get infected by worms. They spread by themselves. Considering that AV is required these days as a precaution, I'd have to say it matters a hell of a lot in a windows environment. If windows wasn't a virus breeding ground then viruses wouldn't be an issue. Yes linux has had worms viruses and it has more than it's fair share of rootkits, but I can stick an openbsd box on the net, totally unprotected, and it won't get hacked. if I throw a windows box up without AV and a firewall, and keep netbios enabled, that box will be compromised in 30 seconds to 2 minutes. yes, I have done that testing. As I will continue to point out, SP2 is a vast improvement, and it has already changed my opinion about the security in windows. It's only taken microsoft 20 years.

---

I've been without power.. so I'm slow in responding.. but anyways.. You are now changing the subject. We went from discussing the security merits of an OS to discussing what is secure out of the box.. When did that change occur? I would be stupid to argue with you about putting a stock install of say windows2000 with no service pack vs. putting up a stock install of open BSD.. so I'm not even going to do it, because you are right, I've seen it happen myself... but that doesn't speak at all about the potential security of the product, which is what I thought we were discussing..

Quote:

---

And you don't have to open untrusted content to get infected by worms.

---

If your machine is current and patched you do. There has yet to be a current worm hit windows2k or XP that wasn't based off of an exploit disclosed by a security notice from MS themselves. When you have a really huge installed user base, and you come out and tell the world about a remotely exploitable bug of course a worm is going to come out that exploits it.. The same thing happens with *nix, no scratch that, ALL operating systems.

edit- I will concede that IE needs to be ripped out of the OS as it is now.. Hopefully MS will start to improve IE as it is a big piece of poo..

I strongly think that two points are a main factor in choosing an OS with security in mind:

- first: knowledge of admins / powerusers
If you have no clue about *nix but are highly skilled in Win systems than choosing linux cause "it's more secure" is completly foolish and vice versa.

- second: function of the system
For instance, a few years ago I had a proxy-server/gateway/firewall running on a WinNT system, almost every 24 hours it crashed for some reason, mostly virus problems, DoS and other ****... I replaced that particular server with a linux box, almost the same functionality with half the hardware, and that little setup (once configured right) ran for months, even years without a crash.

It's all about use and perception...

for El-Half: about mainframes -> those things are stable and they evolved too, for instance look at the SYSTEM/390 (S/390) and Z series market... Although the market of those is declining, cause many entreprises are migrating to open platform environments. IBM is still going to offer support to at least march 2007.
S/390 and Z series mainframe-servers can be considered as the most reliable platforms around and you can run Linux on those big boxes! http://oss.software.ibm.com/linux390/index.shtml
About the advantages of linux on mainframe servers: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver...nux/about.html

Man I miss this thread. Hmm, I'll bump it up and give people new here a chance too take part in it and et more opinions.

OK, How about this:

Slackware 10, no firewall, all services shut down.

Would someone be able too get in? Or would the fact that there is nothing running stop them? How do you break into something that isn't running?


OK, same machine:

Machine now has IPtables not allowing any traffic too the services. Does this really matter? Is it anymore secure now that it has that?

Again:

Machine is now running A Firewall for Linux, like, for example, the Shorewall application. No traffic is alloud, but remember the ports already have services shut down. Now the machine has already been updated and all patches are installed. Is this any more secure than without the firewall? Is it less secure? think about it, it's running MORE software now, the firewall. So is running the firewall actually possibly making it less secure because its another application running? Or does it make it more secure?

Heh, NOW discuss some more :)

Quote:

---

Slackware 10, no firewall, all services shut down.

Would someone be able too get in? Or would the fact that there is nothing running stop them? How do you break into something that isn't running?

---

what do you mean on that config? a stand alone workstation perhaps? or it can start requests, such as http, telnet, etc?

did you comment out every port on *nix conf? inetd (or something like that) is down?

Everything commented out, and any running services shut down that may be running before. No services are running, and upon boot up, after installation, SSH and Apache were shut off which sometimes run by default, they were shut down, and none no longer start up, as they were commented out and no longer start upon boot.

So what do you think? No services at all, but it's on a LAN with a connection too the Internet.

More people use Windows, therefore people take time to actually write viruses/exploits for the OS. Why would they exploit Linux when there's only 10% of the processing power in use when compared to MS boxes? Many Linux distros are far from perfect.

Windows insecurity is not a Microsoft issue, it's a retarded-user issue. If more people knew what "services.msc" was and what services were unneeded, the OS could become a brick wall assuming the firewall is enabled.

MS is still doing the best it can to suppress vulnerability issues. That's why SP2 does not check for pirated copies of Windows...because it is a necessary update for Windows.

A_T

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Slackware 10, no firewall, all services shut down.
Would someone be able too get in? Or would the fact that there is nothing running stop them? How do you break into something that isn't running?

---

You can break into machines that aren't running services, yes. Remember, there's always two pieces to most networked code: Client software, and Server software. If you can't break in via the server software, you still have the client stuff as an avenue of attack.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AxessTerminated
More people use Windows, therefore people take time to actually write viruses/exploits for the OS. Why would they exploit Linux when there's only 10% of the processing power in use when compared to MS boxes? Many Linux distros are far from perfect.

---

Umm, Linux isn't only 10% of the processing power in the server world. In fact, it is a large portion of all webservers, which are among the most popular targets. Estimating installed base with Linux is hard, and even with Windows the numbers are inaccurate, and generally referenced by OEM Desktop sales bundled with Windows.

Quote:

---

Windows insecurity is not a Microsoft issue, it's a retarded-user issue. If more people knew what "services.msc" was and what services were unneeded, the OS could become a brick wall assuming the firewall is enabled.

---

I'd argue the opposite with references to bugs like the IIS exploit that allowed privilege escalation. It is really a combination of the two.

I don't think any linux system has been formally validated at this time to handle data above unclassified. As I am sure you are aware there are standards that organizations must follow when dealing with data above the unclassified level. (By the way, NT does qualify)

No doubt *Nix OSes are more secure as compared to the WIdows because of the Open source factor. It is harder to hide viruses in the code for *nix OSes. Windows is provided by a single party Microsoft, the so called giant inthe software biz. It is its own sole responsiblity to fix the bugs which remain in their software. But for *nix there is no one responsible out there for bug fixing issues. If there is someone out there, Then do drop a message about it.

But administration in Windows 2000 is more sophisticated because of Windows Active Directory Services. Does any *nix system has any equivalent to this thing. The beauty that this costly OS has in it its marvellous support over the network. Integration of various security mechanisms in one wonderful framework called Windows Active DIrectory Services.

No. of applications don't count for the usefulness of an Operating System. Consider them when it comes to ease of use, user friendliness, sole responsibily for the professional creators for any bugs. So windows provides all that. Keep in mind that upto this point Windows is many step ahead of other OSs. The need is there to make it a bit open sourced so that even the amateur programmers can also tweak the bugs for themselves

This is an important thread initiated. There must be some discussion on the issue. Further comments are awaited. I

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
Everything commented out, and any running services shut down that may be running before. No services are running, and upon boot up, after installation, SSH and Apache were shut off which sometimes run by default, they were shut down, and none no longer start up, as they were commented out and no longer start upon boot.

So what do you think? No services at all, but it's on a LAN with a connection too the Internet.

---

so you have an "equivalent" config of an firewall protected machine that allows connections (being started) from inside, but not from outside.

However, since you start connections from inside, you open your "guard" and you can get some kind of malware on those connections. And because you dont have any other protection, that malware can OPEN connections to outside and doom your machine.

On the other hand, i cant see an easy a way to attack you machine if you dont have a previous "channel" with the attacker. BUt you can receive DoS attacks, since your machine has tcp/ip stack active. Im not sure if anyone can compromise tcp/ip stack per se and get some kind of priv escalation since you dont have anything inside it to be "valuable" to be infected (such as a daemon).

blah blah blah!Why do you care so much about what your box is going to run???I use linux for about a year,I don't understand why gore is so stupid to start discussions about meaningless,infinite.time-consuming,ball-cracking subjects...I ve learnt that if a guy (or a girl) or even better a company still wants to use windows after having the opportunity to see what linux looks like then you should let them...I don't care about convincing anyone that linux is better....stay with your commercial,closed source('i got bugs,i got useless code that wastes your memo,i send info of yours to M$ but you will never going to find about it!!'-programs) memory-wasting,Gates-enriching,poor-performance,IE-infected,WMP-infected,crappy,buggy,shitty Windows and just remember:
-you will alway have to reboot
-you will always have to re-install them
-you will always have to see svhost-eating your memory
-you will always have to run antivirus checks on Sunday mornings
-you will always have to purchase good antivirus software,good firewall software,good spyware cleaning software,a good program to watch movies, burn CD's,record audio,edit images,partition your hard drive,listen to music(media player SUCKS)
-you will always have to pay
-you will always have to be screwed
-you will always be a loser
-you will never get the chance how it is to work on a real Operating System not on an accident called windows...
PS:just keep on supporting M$ suckers!