Re: Why are there few viruses for UNIX/Linux systems?

From: erik (erik_at_geenspam.vanwesten.net)
Date: 08/26/03 

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:57:14 +0200

svek wrote:

> erik <erik@geenspam.vanwesten.net> wrote in message
> news:<3f469e9a$0$49105$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...
>
>> Look at the patches for version 3.3. Don't argue. You _will_ loose.
>
> One for possible privilige elevation and one for kernel panic, how
> long has 3.3 been out now? Can't be too long.

Since may 1. One whole patch for security reasons. In a complete distro.

>
>> Not its fair share compared to others. A _lot_ less. Do your stuff.
>
> Well, when I last compared OpenBSD 3.2 against a > X.0 Slackware
> release they were more or less head to head when it came to patches
> issued.
> True the latest release of Slackware has suffered unusually many patch
> issues but then again it is a X.0 release.

So?

>
>> The whole point is that there are no other systems which took similar
>> measures. OpenBSD is leading in this aspect.
>
> So stack protection patches etc were developed for openBSD first?
> I find this quite hard to believe.

No. It is the whole philosophy of carefully scrutinizing code, together
with protective measures. Propolice, W^X, systrace, together with well
written code makes a powerful combination.

>
>> Read about the wonderful vm.
>
> I know there has been trouble with it but what has this got to do with
> a standards?

Changing, changing, changing...

>
>> Especially OpenBSD is recogised as _the_ system to get when it comes
>> to security. Not some obscure rbac patches.
>
> And I thought that was VMS? ;)

Nope. Which vms? :-) I have a little problem starting vms on my intel
machines or on my mac's.

> RBAC isn't an obscure patch, you really should read up on it.

I did. Main objection is that it is not yet integrated. Code should be
written carefully in the first place. That is where things go wrong.

> If I'm not mistaken a project called Trusted BSD is based on porting
> the SE-linux system to BSD (yes, they are talking security enhancing
> patches from linux and implementing them on BSD).

Bleeding to death.

EJ 

-- 
Remove the obvious part (including the dot) for my email address

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unix runs faster, maybe (was: Re: Educating potential VMS users)
    ... Unix may run faster, but without the reliability, so "comparable" ... but VMS is ... work is all of the security patches. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Anyone know why the Alpha market is so so quiet?
    ... this with all of the Windows security patches. ... Because if those systems where running Linux - how many security ... With 5-20 Linux (and Windows) security patches being released each ... have they told you was behind their decision to turf VMS out? ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: changed behavior of SUBMIT/USER
    ... patches to a VMS 8.3 Alpha system. ... Security alarm and security audit on XXXX, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • RE: The Common System Interface: Intels Future Interconnect
    ... Until HP decides to release that MONITOR CLUSTER patch, ... We are talking about *security* patches here. ... Perhpas you might wish to compare VMS with MAC OS classic. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Story Time
    ... All of which applies to BSD equally except that BSD had several years ... The only thing Linux has that BSD ... Sure sounds like the same boat VMS is in to me. ... I only recently applied new patches to BSD 2.11 on my ...
    (comp.os.vms)
Loading