RE: Mac Security

["Todd Towles" <toddtowles () brookshires com>]

Nick wrote:
> The same applies _in large part_ to Linux systems.  Far too 
> many "largely security clueless" folk run them in "Win95 
> security mode" 
> because "it's easier to do things".  These same folk claim 
> that they use Linux because "it's more secure", but then run 
> everything as "root- equivalent".  The number of 
> virus-infected ELF binaries I pull off compromised Linux web 
> servers suggests that the security opinions of anyone who 
> says "there is no real Linux virus/malware threat" can be 
> completely and totally ignored...

You speak the truth my friend, any system is open to attack if not
managed correctly and by a person that have enough knowledge to weight
the security risk correctly. Just look at these defacement stats -
http://www.zone-h.org/en/stats - 58.1% are Linux servers, 19.7% are
Windows 2003 servers. 

Linux admins that don't think they can be hacked are just mis-imformed
it would appear. I am by no means a Linux expert (I barely see myself as
a Linux admin), but I know that if I was going to put a Linux server on
the internet, every service that was accessible would be Chrooted,
looked at for excessive global write permissions, unneeded services
would be disabled, remote root login would be disable, unneeded Apache
mods should be removed or disabled, etc, etc.

And I am not even sure how to do 100% of those things (very little
experience in chroot jails), but then against I don't admin Linux
servers...if I had to, I would find out really fast. ;)

-Todd

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.