Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: RE: Linux (in)security
From: Cael Abal <lists () onryou com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:35:42 -0400
Linux is the hands of someone with no interest or regard for security is the same as Windows or any other OS in the hands of the same clueless individual. The main difference between the Linux and Unix variants (i.e. BSD, Solaris, HP-UX) is that they have already learned their lesson regarded buffer overflows and kernel hardening and allowed the user more control in securing their systems.This is repeated over and over again, but it is simply not entirely true. It may protect against script kiddies, but not against more sophisticated crackers. The following URL proves that: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030525190037%2470c6%40gated-at.bofh.it Both persons in this conversation have a Linux box which: 1) Has the latest security patches installed and 2) Is only running the necessary services. In other words, boxes that have ``been made secure by their users''.
Hi Peter, You're investing a significant amount of time into convincing us that linux boxes sitting on the internet (even when completely up to date and reasonably locked down) aren't 100% secure. Rest easy, each and every one of us knows this. The point raised by others in this thread (which you seem to object to, although you haven't really responded to) is that linux (operated by a knowlegable user) is 'stronger' than a similar Microsoft box. This, you should have realized immediately, is one of those my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad type arguments which really don't deserve a response. Cheers, Cael _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Linux (in)security Schmehl, Paul L (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Thomas Binder (Oct 22)
- RE: RE: Linux (in)security Edward W. Ray (Oct 22)
- RE: RE: Linux (in)security Arcturus (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Jeremiah Cornelius (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Mr. Rufus Faloofus (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Peter Busser (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Cael Abal (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Peter Busser (Oct 23)
- RE: RE: Linux (in)security Edward W. Ray (Oct 22)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Curt Purdy (Oct 22)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Michal Zalewski (Oct 22)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Ron DuFresne (Oct 23)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Curt Purdy (Oct 23)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Michal Zalewski (Oct 23)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Ron DuFresne (Oct 23)
- Re: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security William Warren (Oct 23)
- Re: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Ron DuFresne (Oct 24)
- Re: RE: Linux (in)security Thomas Binder (Oct 22)
- Re: [inbox] Re: RE: Linux (in)security Jeremiah Cornelius (Oct 23)