Re: Security through wide system use?

From: NeoSadist (neosad1st_at_charter.net)
Date: 12/25/03

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue" 
    Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:52:29 -0700

    Andrew McCall wrote:

    > Hi Folks,
    >
    > This isn't intended to be a troll, and I am not trying to start a
    > flame... but...
    >
    > I received an email today from my manager pointing me to an article on
    > news.com.com[1] that states Windows gets hacked more because its
    > popular, and Linux isn't as popular so it doesn't get targeted as
    > much.

    Statistically, maybe, but that's called "security through obscurity", which
    isn't really security at all. These days with the worms running around and
    such, no one is safe.

    >
    > Personally, I think this is a very simplistic view, from both Linux
    > and Windows viewpoint, and would like to find references and articles
    > discussing this so I can try and highlight this to the manager. One
    > source of information I have already identify is the Netcraft[2] web
    > server survey but if anyone else can help me gather more information
    > please can you post the information for me.

    Well any google for "security through obscurity" should lead you to lots of
    websites showing that this is a false sense of security. However, there
    are tons of variables in security. What if the admin doesn't know how to
    use the OS or make it secure? That does no good. What if they aren't
    using a firewall? That's not good. What if they're using windows for a
    server? Depends on how hardened it is, but I'd say that Linux is more
    customizeable. You can put the kernel to the OS on a separate partition
    and mount it read-only to protect it. You can fine-tune IPv4 on it (more
    than windows can, see the various ipv4 hardening websites). It comes with
    IPTables, which is a VERY good firewall. Its filesystem is much more
    strict and less "free" and "open" in terms of permissions, which can help
    it resist viruses more. Also, only root can install things, unlike
    windows, which at times will either allow a program to install itself
    without permission (during a non-admin user's session), or allow the
    non-admin user themself to install things without being admin.
    Windows isn't bad, and it can be customized. I was impressed and still am
    impressed with windows 2000. However, I like Linux due to the things I do
    with my machine, and I'd say that Linux can be customized more than
    windows. However, in the end, it's the admin of the system who is to blame
    for security incidents usually, because any admin can learn the OS they're
    administering and keep it safe (within reason). But then again, no one is
    perfect, and once in a while things will happen that are out of the admin's
    control.

    >
    > I am not trying to prove one system is more secure than the other, and
    > I apprieciate that there are many factors in system security.

    That's good, because like I said, it's very possible to know your OS well
    enough to protect it. Bottom line: windows and linux are different, but
    their strenghts will never materialize if the admin doesn't know what they
    are doing. I recommend that if you don't know Linux, get a spare computer
    and learn Linux, but don't migrate your server until you know how to admin
    that system. Stay with what you know, but start learning other things.
    That is my opinion.

    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Andrew McCall
    >
    > [1] - http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5117271.html?tag=nefd_hed
    > [2] - http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html 

    -- 
Mollison's Bureaucracy Hypothesis:
        If an idea can survive a bureaucratic review and be implemented
it wasn't worth doing.
  • Next message: Joe: "Re: Port 135 Probes Continue"

    Relevant Pages