« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: holes in Linux armor.  (Read 581 times)

bigjake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« on: 15 September 2003, 07:28 »
Greetings to all,
this is my first post at microsuck. Now let me first let my feelings be known about some of the microsoft Os's known.

Windows Xp - I like the Pro version, It is slabe & is great with games. Don't like how Ms spies on you with it though.

Windows 2000 - The Best of the bunch.
Windows Me - The worst Os availible.
Windows 98SE - Is good when a few tweaks are added.

Now I am NOT a microsoft supporter. But not all of there products are evil. Now as far as Linux goes. I like Linux & support the movement 100%. I think MS needs competition. just like Intel needs AMD. I have tried Mandrake 9.1 & I hated it. The Best Linux out there is Red Hat. with all that said, 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.
Logged

Windows_SuX_@$$

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #1 on: 15 September 2003, 07:45 »
Im not no MS supporter, Im currently on XP using many tweeks I have done some tweeking / overclocking Hasnt crashed yet I am also running mozilla I took out all that shit like Calc , Games , and Shit that boots also  change visual properties for better performance

Microsoft = CRAP
Im gonna use dual OS with my tweeked XP for Gaming
Logged
Signatures can appear at the bottom of your posts. This option may be disabled by the message board administrators at any time, however. You may use UBB Code in your signature, but not HTML. UBBCode Images are permitted.

billy_gates

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 801
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.skinner.com/jeffberg
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #2 on: 15 September 2003, 08:28 »
big jake... have you ever tried to install a program on linux?

./configure
make
make install

mixed in with 100 errors.  Now, a virus would have to be compiled and installed the same way.  I know there are stupid people in the world.  But you would have to be really dumb to take so much time to install a virus.
Logged

solarismka

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 598
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #3 on: 15 September 2003, 08:37 »
First off, I think this post belongs in the 'M$' section.

Second.  Nothing can be 100% secure.  BUT the reason linux will never see the state windows is in no matter how popular it gets, is because of the way it is designed.

in linux you can harden, controll services and even turn them off

You can modify check, recheck the source.

You can configure linux alot easier, without the OS becoming undone. Including Auto updates.  Also it will stay together longer even if updates arn't being applied.

Patches are not only faster they are more stable.  Not breaking the whole OS.
 
Its community based as well a lot of books are provided on the subject.  So you don't need to take an MSCE or any other nonsense to use buisness  aplications like running a web server, DNS etc etc...

You also don't need to call a support line and pay expensive bills.

All the moduals are built into the kernel.  No more hunting around for that disk, for that certain drivers.

You can update and control indevidual applications and or customise your applications to your needs.


You can customize the GUI to your likeing! KDE, Gnomoe, Blackbox to name a few

Linux can run an older machines and you still have the latest software!

You don't have any hidden costs.  Like unessessaraly upgradeing the hardware.  Licenses ete etc....

Linux comes in all sorts of flavors to fit your needs.

Linux is more standerdized than windows.  Applications that run on one version of linux will run on others, unlike windows.  Programs that run of ME will have a hard time running on XP!

Linux can even run windows programs, MS Office, Kazaa Lite etc..........

And yes it IS more stabel and secure.

P.S. WinME will run fine if you increase the ram.  The minimum for WinME is 128mb of ram NOT 64mb.

Same with XP.  It will crash less if you have over a gig of ram, no less or you WILL have problems.
Logged
"Regime Change" starts at home!<p>Islam IS NOT the enemy! Against American Terrorism since Sept/11/2001<p>Jihad:<p>http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm <p>new SuSE Linux User!<p><p>If your gonna point a finger at someone then at least have the proof to back you up!<p>trolls are idiots that demand attention by posting whatever is opposite to the theme to ruffle feathers to make people upset!<p>Often these same trolls always mention grammar/spelling since they have no intelligence of their own.

solarismka

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 598
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #4 on: 15 September 2003, 08:41 »
quote:
Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
big jake... have you ever tried to install a program on linux?

./configure
make
make install

mixed in with 100 errors.  Now, a virus would have to be compiled and installed the same way.  I know there are stupid people in the world.  But you would have to be really dumb to take so much time to install a virus.


Don't forget the MD5 hashes

  :D
Logged
"Regime Change" starts at home!<p>Islam IS NOT the enemy! Against American Terrorism since Sept/11/2001<p>Jihad:<p>http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm <p>new SuSE Linux User!<p><p>If your gonna point a finger at someone then at least have the proof to back you up!<p>trolls are idiots that demand attention by posting whatever is opposite to the theme to ruffle feathers to make people upset!<p>Often these same trolls always mention grammar/spelling since they have no intelligence of their own.

mobrien_12

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Kudos: 711
    • http://www.geocities.com/mobrien_12
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #5 on: 15 September 2003, 08:56 »
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.


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.
Logged
In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight....

hm_murdock

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,629
  • Kudos: 378
  • The Lord of Thyme
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #6 on: 16 September 2003, 01:34 »
Jeff!

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

Faust

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,223
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #7 on: 16 September 2003, 04:23 »
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
Logged
Yesterday it worked
Today it is not working
Windows is like that
 -- http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/error-haiku.html

Doctor V

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 661
  • Kudos: 0
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #8 on: 16 September 2003, 06:48 »
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 ]

Logged

billy_gates

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 801
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.skinner.com/jeffberg
holes in Linux armor.
« Reply #9 on: 16 September 2003, 07:41 »
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.


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?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »