Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

holes in Linux armor.

<< < (2/2)

mobrien_12:

quote:Originally posted by bigjake:
you guys bash on microsoft for security problems which I also agree with. But have you ever thought about the idea of LINUX having holes?
Some of you talk about it as if it is impenetrateble, When really it has it holes too. It is just that nobody has attempted to exploit them. Linux does beat Ms in stability and security, but do not be surprised if when Linux becomes just as common as Windows, that security issues become just as big of a problem for Linux as with Windows.
--- End quote ---


Bigjake, you have a point but havn't the whole picture.  If there is a hole in Linux (and I speak using the colloquial definition of Linux being a distribution incluiding the Linux kernel, GNU software, and other free, open-source software) it gets patched and patched fast.

Are there, right now, unpatched holes in Linux? Yes.  There are two very large "buts" to this, however. When holes are found in services they are fixed, freqeuently within hours.  Furthermore, not all services are used, and these days most are disabled by default.  

If you run any modern OS that provides services, those services must be patched on a regular basis.

That said, linux has alot of other security features that give  layers of redundancy that can keep security holes from being exploited, or that will localize the damage possible from an exploit.  These include, for example, static and stateful firewalling, TCP wrappers, daemons which suid away from root so that they cannot be used to exploit the rest of the box.  There are several others.

hm_murdock:
Jeff!

Installing software on Linux is usually more along the lines of using the rpm command, or some GUI frontend for it.

Faust:
Or dselect.  And I can assure you dude, Linux is quite secure.  Maybe not as secure as say Open BSD but it sure kicks the pants off crap like Windows.  And yes, given that Linux running Apache is the most popular web server I wouldn't bring up "it's too unpopular to be exploited" arguments.  There are Linux exploits obviously, just not as many.  Why do you think so many security sites choose not to run Windows eh?

BTW Red Hat is NOT the best distro, and you are a tard for suggesting it.  :-P

Doctor V:
Security updates are made available for linux and its apps all the time.  Much more frequently than windows.  Most of these are minor and do not give viruses/hackers root access.  There is very little time if any for a virus writer to exploit one of there before it is patched up.  The security hole that allowed soBig and blaster to work was publically known and open for a long time, and a patch to fix it was not made available until after the viruses hit.  Also Windows always runs in root.  So there is a big security gap.

The best distro is a matter of opinion, and depends on your needs.  Red Hat may be standard, but I wouldn't call it the best.  I switched to Gentoo from Redhat cause I think Redhat is slow.

[edit: typo]

[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Master of Reality / Bob ]

billy_gates:

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James :D efender against Trolls:
Jeff!

Installing software on Linux is usually more along the lines of using the rpm command, or some GUI frontend for it.
--- End quote ---


thats assuming that the software people are nice enough to create RPM's that match your cpu type and kernel version.

I find RPM's to be highly unreliable.  There is no sure way to tell before installing one if it will work or not.  The only program I like for installing linux stuff in linux (and OSX) is apt-get coupled with either synaptice or fink commander.  But I find even synaptic and apt-get can cause problems.  But this is not a debate on how to install stuff on Linux.

So be quiet JJ.  Your making it seem easier to install a virus... who's side are you on?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page