Re: Advice on Secure Web Servers

From: ANON (xyz@xyz.com)
Date: 02/24/03


From: "ANON" <xyz@xyz.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:30:52 +0000 (UTC)

Thanks,

The question was more about the "security" of the two options. The EnGarde
implementation of Linux appears to he a very robust and secure version of
Linux with hardened features to stop most of the OS vulnerabilities as I
guess is Microsoft ISA (Internet Security Accelerator).

Bearing in mind that this is simply a web proxy to get through to the
Inner/Lower DMZ and won't have any content locally installed. It also
should have minimal admin requirements apart from loading appropriate
security patches etc. I'm personally comfortable managing both varieties of
OS.

It's just that I believe the Linux EnGarde solution "should" be more secure
than the MS ISA option but then again this is a gut feel rather than
something I can support technically. I just wondered if anyone had
experiences with either (or better both) from the pure security /
breakability side of things.

Thanks in advance

Bill

"Mike" <michael.owen@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:567f0a34.0302220347.25ad44b2@posting.google.com...
> "ANON" <xyz@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:<b3367c$cr3$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > Folks,
> > We currently have a fairly loud debate on-going at the moment regarding
> > which variety of Secure Web Servers we should deploy. The two
favourites at
> > the moment are:
> > o Microsoft ISA
> > o EnGarde Linux
> >
> > Are there any views on which would be the best choice. For reference my
> > choice is the Engarde based system but then again I'm a techie,
management
> > would prefer Mirosoft based systems :-((
> >
> > Any help and advice would be gratefully received.
>
> The biggest deciding factor in this is the technical skills of the
> admins, namely YOU. If you feel you can properly secure and support a
> Linux server, but not a Windows server, there is no question you
> should go for the Linux solution.
>
> If you honestly think you could secure both with the skills you have
> now, then the decision is more business-based. Costs, etc...
>
> If you're having trouble convincing management that Linux is an
> enterprise solution, you could point out that IBM use Linux solutions
> for large enterprises these days. Some people don't realise how far
> Linux has progressed since the early days.
>
> --
> Mike



Relevant Pages

  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: Linux (in)security
    ... We simply use alternate approaches to security. ... Microsoft for their platform of choice, so, we are simply changing with the ... I have never heard of a Linux vendor saying that Linux is "secure out of the ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Ten least secure programs
    ... it's probably better you leave the topic alone ... I said I do not have security issues with the programs I code. ... I didn't realize you were a Linux user, ... > the most widely used and secure UNIX flavors? ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Viruses and hackers make Windows more secure - Gates
    ... >of the box more secure than a typical new Linux distro. ... Despite M$'s assurance that they would rethink security etc etc ... When you take into account all the exploits over the last couple of ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: Advice on Secure Web Servers
    ... The question was more about the "security" of the two options. ... Linux with hardened features to stop most of the OS vulnerabilities as I ... It's just that I believe the Linux EnGarde solution "should" be more secure ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Ten least secure programs
    ... Subject: Ten least secure programs ... only someone that's hard up to bash Linux users would assume this. ... > corrected virtually all current and yet to be discovered security issues ...
    (Security-Basics)