Re: P2P software is security?

From: svek (svek-YOU-KNOW-THE-DRILL@gmx.net)
Date: 07/05/02 

From: svek <svek-YOU-KNOW-THE-DRILL@gmx.net>
Date: 5 Jul 2002 10:16:14 GMT

richardhack@SPAMHELLNOznet.com (Richard Steven Hack) wrote in
news:3d2508ca.14267706@localhost:

> Well, UNIX maybe has more exploits since its been around twenty years
> longer than Windows.

he was talking about linux... linux has been around for about 10 years
and UNIX for about 30.

> The NSA chose Linux to create a secure OS for government use. That
> says something.

well they made a patch which should be quite good (I'm going to play with
it this weekend) but that seems more like a "can it be done?" kind of
project.

> That's the fault of the administrators, not the OS, not to mention the
> fact that Linux is chosen to host net services because it is more
> reliable than Windows and therefore has more Net installations. The
> White House server runs Linux, IIRC.

agreed on the first line.
I haven't used windows for offering services so I really shouldn't talk
but the NT network I experienced in school was not doing what it was
supposed to, which the linux/unix networks I've seen did do.
and whitehouse runs on SGI computers as far as I know unless they changed
quite recently(?).

> Linux can be locked down more tightly than Windows simply because
> Linux does not run all the Windows services that have scores of
> exploits designed specifically for them.

haven't tried but I do like the fact that you actually know what gets
installed on a linux computer and you can choose what to and what not to
install, which I've never seen in a windows installation.

> Actually, tho, I have heard that FreeBSD is the OS of choice for
> secure facilities as it has more security built in.

openBSD should be quite good if you want quite good security from
default, I myself like to go though a security check anyway so I'll just
use my favourite gnu/linux and lock it down.

> If Linux does get big enough, presumbly exploits will then target it
> as much as Windows. Then we can see which OS is really more secure.
> That's a ways off, tho, since Linux is still not anywhere on as many
> machines as Windows and I doubt it ever will be, actually.

well there are quite a few exploits and quite a few kiddies scanning of
and attacking linux boxes, exploits and scanners are easy to use these
days so most kiddies will attack about any OS (read linux and windows)
that comes in their way.

> Actually I'm not a Linux geek - I'm only quoting what I've read in
> industry trade publications. I do have Linux on my system, but I work
> mostly in Windows right now - until I get Red Hat 7.3 on my system
> next week anyway.

well I am a linux geek and slackware fanatic but it doesn't make me blind
thinking linux is the solution to the worlds problems just that it is a
damn good multipurpose OS if treated right ;)

/svek

Relevant Pages