Printable View
Source : http://www.zone-h.org/en/winvslinux2
Moral : The moral is, in this historical period of the Internet, don't trust anybody who is "lecturing" about the inherent vulnerability of a particular Operating System.
Please Visit the source to have a look.
All I have to say is check out www.cert.org most of the vulnerabilitys are for Windows Platforms not Linux. :) Everyone knows if you need security go with Linux not Windows. :cool:
i dont understand. what does this mean? is linux less secure than windows? ahh i got windows me and i am ok right?
It means the complete opposite. Linux is more secure than Windows always have been always will be! As far as running Windows ME to be honest thats a very buggy operating system that I wouldnt run I would rather run windows 98 than ME but thats my personal opionion.Quote:
i dont understand. what does this mean? is linux less secure than windows? ahh i got windows me and i am ok right?
but in the link it says that linux is attacked more often than windows i think. how can linux be safer if linux is getting attacked all the time? the little graphs say that linux is attacked more than windows so windows must be safer than linux right?
Well, just on the 'attacking' standpoint, let's take a look at a real-life example I went through. I have a linux box that hosts pages via Apache 2.0.48. PHP 4.3.5RC3, PostgreSQL 7.3.4, the whole nine yards...
It's the same box that two years ago, when Code Red came out, my apache got HAMMERED because of all the damned infested taken-over IIS-driven servers. In one month, I had over 80,000 hits from 900+ unique addresses. Does this mean my box is less secure? On the contrary; in this one example, my box was shining because I wasn't running the webserver that was insecure. And then I installed that great php script that someone made up halt IIS and shutdown the server if it was infected, hehe...
In the long run, security is up to the administrator. I know die-hard windows admins who have really secure environments and I know linux admins who have holes all over the place...it's up to the administrator to secure a box and you're only as good as how much you check logs and the like, hehe. :D
Although I totally agree with Vorlin on this matter, I also think the frequency of attacks are related to how easily they can be done. It's just easier to attack a windows box because it actually doesn't require the attacker to use his brains...in windows all you need is some sort of wanna-be-a-hacker- kit and click away. Logically, the second choice is linux, because it just so happens to be the easiest "encarnation" of unix.
But on the other hand I'd really like to question the validity of this graph you brought foward ..where and how is this data being collected?
If I attack a Linux server 400 times, and never get in, but attack a Mac server ONE time and gain root....Does that make the Mac I owned more secure because there was only one attack? NO! Just because it was attacked doesn't mean dick. When it gets owned, THEN it means something.Quote:
Originally posted here by Wizard314
but in the link it says that linux is attacked more often than windows i think. how can linux be safer if linux is getting attacked all the time? the little graphs say that linux is attacked more than windows so windows must be safer than linux right?
On my network, there are a total of 9 machines. 5 Windows boxes and 5 Linux boxes. (I know, it doesn't add up, my laptop dual-boots so I counted it twice) I don't think any box is more secure than any other. It ALL comes down to the administrator.
Windows just looks more tempting, to many people, it is more familiar. Properly secured, it is just as good (security wise) as Linux. I am referring to the newer versions of Windows of course.
Although just due to a technicality, 6 of the boxes my network are more secure than the other three, due to the fact that they're behind a second router. Everytime my couch is moved, the router loses power and makes the network "ultra-secure."
EDIT: I personally would have an easier time breaking into a Linux or BSD box than I would a Windows box, just due to the higher comfort level I have with Linux/BSD. I could get into both, it would just take longer. Funny thing is, I doubt I could ever break into a Mac, except possibly the newest MacOS which is BSD based. (Very loosely based on BSD) This doesn't mean that an old Mac is the most secure system in the world.
As stated before the sheer number of attacks mean very little. Not to mention I personally know people that would be insulted if you asked to attack a windows box. Their response would be "Isn't that redundant?"
Windows is still part of the problem not the solution. XP is perfect example.
In theory DOS is the most secure system in the world, as it is single user single tasking, and would, in theory, be hard to get hacked into, as it couldn't handle a second user. ;)
If you want to make Windows 9X more multi user, install a Trojan, like Sub7. That way it can handle remote log ins much better ;)
My Amiga 4000 040 is pretty damn secure. hehehe
well friedns i think all of u missed one very important point that is the moral of the story thats why i posted that along with the link here. It states
"The moral is, in this historical period of the Internet, don't trust anybody who is "lecturing" about the inherent vulnerability of a particular Operating System."
So its basically the administrator who makes the web server secure and not the OS LSD-PL working on windows, Xforce ISS working on windows, iSec breaking linux....we have groups of nerd geeks who work to break the OS to make it more secure...
now the job of the administrator starts to keep himself updated and implement the required patches updates on time and take corrective/ preventive actions. be it by taking more pains on one OS and less on the other.
so again repeating the moral of the story.
"The moral is, in this historical period of the Internet, don't trust anybody who is "lecturing" about the inherent vulnerability of a particular Operating System."
Speaking of the admin, my friends always hammer this in my mind, that the ability to write scripts seperates the looser admins from the uber admins. Im glad we have some hardcore admins around here.....well, I go back to reading my Orielly books.Quote:
Originally posted here by Vorlin
It's the same box that two years ago, when Code Red came out, my apache got HAMMERED because of all the damned infested taken-over IIS-driven servers. In one month, I had over 80,000 hits from 900+ unique addresses. Does this mean my box is less secure? On the contrary; in this one example, my box was shining because I wasn't running the webserver that was insecure. And then I installed that great php script that someone made up halt IIS and shutdown the server if it was infected, hehe...
In the long run, security is up to the administrator. I know die-hard windows admins who have really secure environments and I know linux admins who have holes all over the place...it's up to the administrator to secure a box and you're only as good as how much you check logs and the like, hehe. :D [/B]
Linux and windows as far as which is being more secure.
I would have to also say linux.
But linux is probably hacked more because more "hackers" utilize the os So more attacks are going to hit linux then windows.
I agree windows me is the worse version of windows ever made to me.
You are very liable to be "hacked" and crippled running me.
Erm to all those people saying that X is better than Y. Correct me if im wrong but those figures to me seem like they are plotting "Attacks" Against a system NOT "Successfull attacks". Now i may be barking up the wrong tree here but to me it seems like all that info is completely irrelivant in an argument of how secure a certain OS is because no matter how secure it is people will still attack, They may or may not be successfull at this.
[Edit]
In my View no OS is more secure than another it depends fully on the admin and the users. Say for example i have a linux machine with the root password written on the screen verses a windows machne with all the updates on and a firewall etc. Can you see my point here basically im saying no OS can be judged on how secure it is unless you have standard conditions for both OS'es.
i completely agree. the box is only as good as the admin. as for linux "always being more secure" , as computernerd22 said, that is not so. Lets say i have a win98se box with all new patches and a very old version of mandrake or redhat without. An OS can be as secure as any other Os, some just need a little more work. the only reason people say linux is more secure is because it is open source. just because people can see the code doesnt mean they can find all the vulnerabilities.Quote:
In my View no OS is more secure than another it depends fully on the admin and the users. Say for example i have a linux machine with the root password written on the screen verses a windows machne with all the updates on and a firewall etc. Can you see my point here basically im saying no OS can be judged on how secure it is unless you have standard conditions for both OS'es.
slick
from the same source (see post #1 in this trhead):
also a more common way of doing anything with a website you shouldn't be doing is by exploiting the code (php/asp/etc), wich is os independantQuote:
So far, so good except from one detail: the only exact action after watching these data is that
YOU SHOULD SEND ALL THIS ANALYSIS AND THESE GRAPHS IN /DEV/NULL
Why? The reason is simple.
First of all, somebody might argue that the data should be re-evaluated and proportioned to the total amount of worldwide installations.
Second, crackers are choosing OS depending of what is "leet" at that very moment (remember the Solaris Armageddon 18 months ago?)
Availability of 0days for particular OSs is also contributing to the "mumbo jumbo" curves of the above graph.
EVEN THEN, EVERYTHING SHOULD STILL GO TO /DEV/NULL
In fact, nowadays many of the intrusions are performed at database or application level.
Regardless the OS.
Regardless the web server.
Sql injection and file inclusion are the most used tecniques in the latest months. This is happening because the usual "availability" of exploiting codes has been constantly decreasing over the last 12 months since groups like Teso has stopped to release to the public.
The moral is, in this historical period of the Internet, don't trust anybody who is "lecturing" about the inherent vulnerability of a particular Operating System.