Re: I am REALLY Getting Tired of Probes on 445 and 135

From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:24:44 GMT

In article <ggurp05td66uqe1mg17ii5tkajd94hgb8v@4ax.com>,
NoSpam@NoSpam.net says...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:13:27 -0500, Lars M. Hansen
> <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, we changed the topic from Windows to IIS? Did I miss a memo
> >somewhere?
>
> It wasn't a topic change, it was an illustration that lager
> marketshare does not mean more security problems.

The illustration is flawed in this discussion. IIS is no more a security
risk, when properly configured, than any other web server service.

> Poorly designed software means more security problems. Software that
> is not designed with security in mind means more security problems.

There is a difference between poorly designed software on any platform
and a poorly designed Operating System. And Poorly is subjective.

As a typical example, MS OS based systems are used in their default
configuration by most users that are compromised.

The vast majority of users on the internet are running a MS OS.

Even Linux systems, which make up an almost insignificant number of
users on the Intenet, are compromised on a daily basis.

Both platforms have poorly designed software - you can see this by the
number of software (we're not talking OS) updates release for the
applications running on the platforms.

The background chatter on 135/445 is at the current level because the MS
OS is set to default to a non-secured, non-locked down, mode by default.

The non-MS bases platforms are much less open to the MS types security
default problems, but they are also open to security flaws in many of
the applications installed on the non-MS based platforms.

What you need to do is understand that the percentage of compromised
systems takes into account for the NUMBER of installed systems, it's
proportional to the installed base.

If you look at the probes we get on our servers, the amount of activity
from MS based systems is the same as non-MS based systems when you
consider the installed BASE.

Now, so that you don't misunderstand, even the MS Based OS's can be
secured as well as the non-MS based OS's, you just have to understand
them in order to do it. 

-- 
-- 
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Mac OS X no longer immune to viruses!
    ... VMS does notrely on security by obscurity. ... No vendor makes a platform that is 100% secure - heck, ... Are some platforms inherently more secure by design? ... Do the platforms that are more secure have the same market share as ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Lille-Strasbourg TGV
    ... providing enough security for a nation that is at war. ... those boarding at Amsterdam to take place on the train. ... have a similar problem at Bruxelles where the secure platforms are north ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Firewall-1 Security on different platforms
    ... > The type of information I seek is kind of a fw-1 security comparison ... > between the different platforms. ... > can be secure or very insecure depending on the sysadmin. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Mac X-Server Security Questions...
    ... I agree with you about securing by mixing platforms and adding layers ... is not the same as Windows, I probably wouldn't install a Windows based ... (functionality and generations of work without security as a priority). ... Earn your MS in Information Security ONLINE ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: OpenSSL Hacks
    ... possible on many platforms when a null pointer is used as though it ... to denial-of-service are a crucial security goal. ... If you found a honest-to-goodness exploitable security vulnerability, ...
    (sci.crypt)