78% of Linux Users Never Been Hacked

From ebcvg.com new's:

Quote:

---

A Survey released by Evans Data reveals that 92% of respondents have never had their Linux systems infected with a virus.

The survey, titled Summer 2004 Linux Development Survey, also reports that 78% of Linux developers have never had their systems hacked.

Additionally, a mere seven per cent had been hacked three or more times.

According to the survey, of the 22% hacked users, 23% of intrusions were made by users with working, legit login ID's.

---

Gotta love the *nix security :D Official Link to Article

Well the main reason for that is, that there is a lot less people trying to take down a linux system. I mean think about it. If 95% of the market uses windows, you are going to more than likely find a windows idiot, before you find a linux idiot. The other reason for this, is simply that *Nix users tend to know more than there windows conterparts. I mean ****, you have to know just a little to install the damn distro, a bit more than a windows user would have to know, to install windows.

It is not the Linux Security, it is the user's intelligence, along with the fact more people use Windows. I mean I can show you just how easy it is to take down a linux system that is unsecure. I have a perl script I am working to automate it.

The difference between the OS's is more a fact that, if you are a Windows user and don't know your ****, you can get by without being jacked by someone, if your smart enough to put a firewall on, and get a little AV. Just the basics.

Now a *nix user has to go farther, they have to make sure that there system is locked down, that they don't overuse root. That they don't set unneeded processes to be ran by root. A *nix user is more of an easy target than a Windows User IMHO.

The main point I am trying to make is, for a long time people have been saying that it is the OS, that is to blame, when to be honest it isn't. I have said that for myself, but after using both very indept, and taking a hit at both, they are the same. It matters who is running the system.

The reason that only 22% were hacked is:
1) Because that 22 % were probably using systems that weren't updated.
2) Those 22% of systems are so damn small on the overall amount of systems on the net, that is it sad.
3) *nix users tend to know more.

With all that said, I have to say that Windows is a pretty secure OS, if you know your ****, and know how to patch, and when not to patch.

(Though I still have problems with M$, I just won't take a hit at there OS anymore.)

I’d say one reason cracking Linux boxes is so popular is because they make better stepping stones for attacking other system later. Crack a Linux box at a University, then use that box to crack another and obscure your identity.

How the hell does cracking a linux box, make a better stepping stone?

Ok crack a windows Box at a university.

Please elaborate(sp).

My XP box has never been cracked :D

im with whizkid. Those stats are like that just because:
a) the market discrenpancies between the O.S.
b) PPl still must be less dumb to work with Linux than Windows. For instance, some ppl cant even migrate to 2000/Xp because "its to hard to use"....

BTW, i can see a lot of ppl in market --- usually small companies, like bakeries -- are using Linux instead Windows due to high prices.. And gess what?

They are installing (or get installed by "tech support ppl") like windows. put cd, boot, next, next, next, next.... finish. And with cd that come on magazines.

and you can see what kind of security they get. using root for normal activities, with no password, a lot of services installed for nothing.

just wait until they are become massive..

or just games developers start to deploy a lot of games for Linux...

the problem isnt the O.S. (although it has some problems) but the interface...

between the seat and keyboard.

By stepping stone I mean using the first box to crack other boxes. There are a few reasons for wanting to do this:

1. University often have more bandwidth then other machines, so some forms of attack will be faster.
2. It obscures your identity.
3. It gives you a place to store your tools and data.

The reason Linux makes a better stepping stone then Windows is because many of the best security tools/exploits are written for Linux first and remote interactivity is a lot more easier. Windows has telnet and SSH, but there are not as common or as useful as they are on a *nix box.

I'd like to point out a few things here. First off, numbers can mean a lot of things. It's interesting that one article says "users" when the other says "developers". While developers may be users, not usually the other way around. And developers would, I imagine, be more aware of what happens on their box. In addition, did anyone ask the question of "if you think you weren't 'hacked', have you actually checked to see that you weren't?".

What worries me about a report like this is that some will automatically associate it as meaning "linux = secure" when in fact it is just as insecure as any other system. It all depends on the user using it and how much attention to security they give the OS.

I don't think it's got much to do with the actual security of the Operating System (Linux, in this case).

1. How many of those respondents were willing to say that they've been compromised? I don't know about you guys, but I'd have a hard time admitting that my box had been compromised.
It's like those stats saying that crime has risen in a certain region of the country compared to 50 years ago, while it's actually the willingness of people to report the crime that has risen.

2. How many respondents' systems had been compromised without the user even knowing it?
Under this category would fall most respondents who don't have anti-virus.

3. If you'd ask the same question to a Windows-target group (of Windows developers), I'm sure you'd get even "better" results (if not 100% of "clean" systems. No Windows-developer is probably even allowed to report that his system has been compromised, and definitely if he works for MS).

There are at least 5 more objections to this study...
I say it's a worthless study, just like most studies where you ask someone to admit something "embarassing". And it's even more worthless because there probably wasn't any verification (not that that would be possible unless the survey is done in a controlled environment, which would defeat the purpose of the study).

I'm done rambling now.

Edit: add MsMittens' objections to my list :D

MsM: Good observation, I didn't really pay attention to the fact that developer's are user's but not alway's the same way around. Excellent point, which add's to knowledge of that same OS which add's to security. Hrmm, then again you have people like pooh sun tzu who is a developer (or something of the like) and seem's to know his OS pretty well.

My linux box got hacked once..

but it was because my missus cracked the sads and attacked it with a hammer and flat head screw driver..
I got pictures any one wanna c 'em?

f2b:.

78% of Linux Users Never Been Hacked

NT retains its logs after a full system compromise, Linux does not. (that pesky failure to segregate admins and operators keeps biting them in the ass) So a much larger percentage of successful Linux compromises go undetected.

*echo*

I left a FreeBSD box open all night after a fresh install because it was getting late, the next day I figured I would arm it. I saw a jacked up UID :#: in a paranoid guess I figured it was tainted and proceeded another fresh install. I don't remeber excactly what I saw that tweaked me I was still just starting to read the O'reilly "safe" book at the time. So I'm in a draw it was 'prolly nothin.

Quote:

---

By stepping stone I mean using the first box to crack other boxes. There are a few reasons for wanting to do this:

1. University often have more bandwidth then other machines, so some forms of attack will be faster.
2. It obscures your identity.
3. It gives you a place to store your tools and data.

The reason Linux makes a better stepping stone then Windows is because many of the best security tools/exploits are written for Linux first and remote interactivity is a lot more easier. Windows has telnet and SSH, but there are not as common or as useful as they are on a *nix box.

---

I know what a stepping stone is, my question to you is still the same how the hell can a *nix box be better than a Windows box. I know Universities that run Windows, and I know Universities that run *nix. As far as tools, there aren't many tools that you can get for one that you can't get for the other. So there once again. How is a *nix box better than a windows box?

Give me one reason why a comprised Windows box is better than a comprised Windows box.

Give me something, because in all my reading, I haven't found any real reasons, I mean **** most things that *nix has Windows can get, and there are somethings, that are easier to do on a Windows box.

So give me some info, let me know what you know, that I somehow missed in all my reading. I guess I must of skipped that in all my *nix books, and hacking books, and tutorials.

Please pretty please, explain.

In any case that you can't, walk away now, before I start qouting books.

Quote:

---

Give me one reason why a comprised Windows box is better than a comprised Windows box.

---

Because it's a Windows box? :D

1. Remotely manipulating the box is easier because SSH or Telnet on a *nix box is far more flexible then the alternatives on a Windows box (in my opinion at least).
2. Most *nix boxes will have compilers on them so you can compile your tools there if you so wish.
3. More *nix box then Windows boxes will have easy ways of transferring files (via FTP or SFTP).
4. A lot of exploits are written to be compiled in *nix environments, while you an use Cygwin on the Windows box why bother?

I’m not attacking *nix, I’m just saying *nix boxes make better attack boxes over all. I don’t understand why you seem to be getting upset about that statement.

I am not getting upset. Don't take it personal, I am just finding way to many people saying something without any facts to back it up. Part of the time, just shearly saying opinion. I feel that opinion isn't always the best way to show or say something.

Now, if what you were saying is all opinion, ok. I won't say anything, but if what you were saying is fact. Elaborate. Explain to me where I am amiss, in not getting 10,000 *nix zombie boxes.

I am just clearly trying to understand what you are talking about. Because to be honest, I am still lost. Everything that you have stated so far can be done on a Windows box. I can get a FTP up on a Windows box, I can download a compiler on a windows box.

As far as SSH and Telnet on a *nix box being more flexible, what do you mean by flexible?

Ever heard of putty. I love that program.

So at this present point, you still have not made one point as to how *nix boxes are better as a stepping stone.

Please show me where I am amiss, give me a link or something. I never have a problem being wrong.

So please make me wrong.

So far, you haven't shown me one thing that can't be done on both.

It’s just my opinion. You are right that you can do all of this with a Windows box, but it’s easier to do with a *nix box because many times the tools will already be there. In *nix you can do everything from the command line, but in Windows there’s a lot off stuff that you need the GUI for and if you don’t have terminal services/remote desktop or VNC on the box that can be hard (and all those GUI apps take more bandwidth then SSH).

That I will give you.

Actually there are somethings that can't be run from the command line on a *nix system, well atleast a RH one.

Try to start a service like, start up the apache server on RH9. You have to use the GUI system. Which ****ing erks the hell out of me.

I am still looking for the perfect command line distro, so I don't have to even install the GUI part.

That and I am still looking for a command line calculator, I think I am going to have to write one myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by whizkid2300
That I will give you.

Actually there are somethings that can't be run from the command line on a *nix system, well atleast a RH one.

Try to start a service like, start up the apache server on RH9. You have to use the GUI system. Which ****ing erks the hell out of me.

I am still looking for the perfect command line distro, so I don't have to even install the GUI part.

---

Please say that your joking?

You can run EVERYTHING from the command line in *nix :D
Unless ( i have to admit i never tried RH) RH is really that bad..... other than that, ive set up servers on many different *nix styles, using only the command line. Apache, squid, vsftpd, postfix, firewalls, IRCd's, BIND, webmin, sshd, telnetd, fingerd, everything on a system which does not even have a GUI installed.

Can someone with some more RH knowledge than me say anything about this?


/edit

If its true that RH needs a GUI to start services, then RH is a disgrace to all *nix systems. I cant imagine it.

Cheers.

I seem to recall on my RH 9 doing a:

/etc/init.d/httpd restart

to restart the web server.

I felt a need to say something about all this...

First of all, I fully agree with people here saying that the weakest part of computer system is interface between seat and keyboard/mouse (= user).
Also, I have to admit two things:
1. my windows box was cracked once, because of my stupidity to start exe attached in some e-mail. Thank God, it was 5 years ago, when I just bought my first PC.
2. I never used *nix. The reason is that I never find enough time to learn about it. And I don't want to use some OS I don't know how to secure.

when we look at thees two statements then you will see why would I prefer Win Box to use.
But that is personal. Someone else has more experience on *nix and know how to use most of it.

Back to the primary topic of this thread.
I think that overal of cracked/hacked/compromised *nix systems is much larger. Why? What is the most popular web server? I gues Apache on Linux. Can someone tell me how many web servers both win or linux never were attacked succesfully? I bet not much of them. Ofcourse, no one will admit that their server was cracked, until the cracker put his own html on attacked web page.

So, what realy matters in this whole thing is not who made OS. It is who use it, and how much the targeted box is known to the world.

Guess what, it is realy easy to make box safe, no matter what OS is on it. Unplug the telephone/network cable from it, and make restricted access to its keyboard/mouse.

huh, I started to talk to much, and everything is going to wide.. time to go to bed

whizkid2300, check these out

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/apps/math/calc/!INDEX.short.html
http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/1983
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/P...rs/index.shtml
http://fr.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/Prod...ific_Math.html


As far as the main topic, no comment, been there done that. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by whizkid2300

That and I am still looking for a command line calculator, I think I am going to have to write one myself.

---

Have you tried bc for built in calculator?

i have built a windows 2000 server whigh got defaced about 4 times evan with all the updates, so i built a linux box whih the crackers could not dent it.
I am not saying linux is better just that i find it easier to lock down, As windows has a tendency to (HIDE) some of it's holes. Linux seems to be pretty (up front) with it,s security issues.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by whizkid2300
How is a *nix box better than a windows box?

---

A good percentage of windows boxes are home computers on dial up , a high percentage of *nix boxes are servers on big pipes. Would you rather 0wn grannys win98 on dial up with a 40 gig harddrive or a dual opteron with 3 gigs of RAM and 300gigs storage on a t3? easy choice isnt it.

There are a couple of problems with this statement.... (reference to thread topic....)

1) A hacked box is not always easy to spot, particualry if the attacker was highly skilled and paranoid
about being discovered. Most attackers want to elevate/maintain access to the system, so they will
go to great lengths to make the system appear as if all is well. Unless they asked this question of expert security administrators the replies are suspect.

2) There might be more Windows™ boxes on the planet, but hacking has always been a predominately
UNIX-oriented activity. Simply put, it is far more useful to have 100 boxes running some Unix-variant under
your control than 100 Windows boxes. Most security/cracking tools and exploits are meant to be run from
some Unix-variant regardless of the end target; which, irrespective of OS preference makes r00ting Unix boxes
much more worthwhile.

3) Popular computer activities are inherently insecure. It really doesn't matter what OS you choose to run, or how tightly you lock down your network if you are going to bring in untrusted (i.e. mp3's, images, moveis, games, etc., etc.,) files onto your system.

4) Consider that many exploits are kept secret within close-knit black hat circles never making it to bugtrack and other popular places to annouce new security issues.

Linux is an outstanding OS, and I have full confidence that it will continue to get even better. To make claims that
suggest it is secure even in the hands of a novice or casual user is just untruthful and unrealistic at this point.

-- spurious