Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Linux lasts longer

Reply
Thread Tools

Linux lasts longer

 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Interesting item
<http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
-5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity has
grown by leaps and bounds.

This other study
<http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Read the full article.

The testing failed to note which version of windows XP. So basically they
could have took a fully up to date patched Linux system and put it up
against the 1st release of XP..... Linux systems cannot resist attacks for
months, if the right attack is launched against the right build it will be
comprimised immediately. You either get comprimised, or you don't.


"Lawrence DčOliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Interesting item
> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity has
> grown by leaps and bounds.
>
> This other study
> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Read the full article.

The testing failed to note which version of windows XP. So basically they
could have took a fully up to date patched Linux system and put it up
against the 1st release of XP..... Linux systems cannot resist attacks for
months, if the right attack is launched against the right build it will be
comprimised immediately. You either get comprimised, or you don't.


"Lawrence DčOliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Interesting item
> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity has
> grown by leaps and bounds.
>
> This other study
> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.



 
Reply With Quote
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> Interesting item
> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity has
> grown by leaps and bounds.
>
> This other study
> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.


If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
last forever.

However I am not sure which OS holds the fastest compromise win98 or
RH6.2 both can be hacked in minutes, somethng like 18 if i recall.

As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
secured and kept secured when maintained by a competant person, this
applies to Linux equally.

What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> Interesting item
> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity has
> grown by leaps and bounds.
>
> This other study
> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.


If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
last forever.

However I am not sure which OS holds the fastest compromise win98 or
RH6.2 both can be hacked in minutes, somethng like 18 if i recall.

As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
secured and kept secured when maintained by a competant person, this
applies to Linux equally.

What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
In article <41cb9d1f$(E-Mail Removed)>, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
>last forever.


If you depend on a firewall to keep you safe "forever", then you're
living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

>As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
>secured and kept secured when maintained by a compet[e]nt person, this
>applies to Linux equally.


And yet the reality is that such "competent" people seem a bit thin on
the ground.

>What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.


Which undermines your point above, and agrees with the way the real
world works.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
In article <41cb9d1f$(E-Mail Removed)>, thing <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
>last forever.


If you depend on a firewall to keep you safe "forever", then you're
living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

>As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
>secured and kept secured when maintained by a compet[e]nt person, this
>applies to Linux equally.


And yet the reality is that such "competent" people seem a bit thin on
the ground.

>What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.


Which undermines your point above, and agrees with the way the real
world works.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
thing wrote:
> Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>
>> Interesting item
>> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
>> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
>> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
>> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
>> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
>> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity
>> has grown by leaps and bounds.
>>
>> This other study
>> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
>> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
>> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.

>
>
> If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
> last forever.

Yeah, right. Until you use it.
>
> However I am not sure which OS holds the fastest compromise win98 or
> RH6.2 both can be hacked in minutes, somethng like 18 if i recall.

OK, let's compare like with like. But 6 years have passed for both
operating systems, and that makes the comparison meaningless. Win 98,
2000, xp, RH 6.2, 7, 8 (9?), FC1, 2, 3...

And XP SP1 has a life expectancy of 4 minutes.
>
> As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
> secured and kept secured when maintained by a competant person, this
> applies to Linux equally.

As a systems administrator, I would never *ever* employ anyone with that
attitude. Spelling helps, too.
>
> What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.
>

And ostriches for administrators.
> regards
>
> Thing
>

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
thing wrote:
> Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>
>> Interesting item
>> <http://news.com.com/Linux+lasting+lo...ks/2100-7349_3
>> -5501278.html> says that even unpatched Linux installations out of the
>> box last much longer than Windows systems against Internet attacks.
>> Whereas Windows is typically compromised within minutes, the Linux
>> systems can resist attacks for months. And the security of Linux has
>> actually _improved_ over the last few years, even as its popularity
>> has grown by leaps and bounds.
>>
>> This other study
>> <http://news.com.com/Security+researc...ewer+flaws/210
>> 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
>> incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.

>
>
> If a firewall is setup allowing no access to any ports then it should
> last forever.

Yeah, right. Until you use it.
>
> However I am not sure which OS holds the fastest compromise win98 or
> RH6.2 both can be hacked in minutes, somethng like 18 if i recall.

OK, let's compare like with like. But 6 years have passed for both
operating systems, and that makes the comparison meaningless. Win 98,
2000, xp, RH 6.2, 7, 8 (9?), FC1, 2, 3...

And XP SP1 has a life expectancy of 4 minutes.
>
> As a sys administrator I view such statistics are meaningless, MS can be
> secured and kept secured when maintained by a competant person, this
> applies to Linux equally.

As a systems administrator, I would never *ever* employ anyone with that
attitude. Spelling helps, too.
>
> What balls' it up is (the vast majority of) home users who have no clue.
>

And ostriches for administrators.
> regards
>
> Thing
>

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Hope
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2004
Mark S wrote:

> Read the full article.
>
> The testing failed to note which version of windows XP. So basically
> they could have took a fully up to date patched Linux system and put
> it up against the 1st release of XP..... Linux systems cannot resist
> attacks for months, if the right attack is launched against the right
> build it will be comprimised immediately. You either get comprimised,
> or you don't.


And it also depends what's actually installed. It's all very well saying
"Linux" is better and will last longer than XP etc etc but what people
forget is the big difference between Windows and a Linux distro is a)
there are so damn many of them and b) you get a lot more choice about
what you actually install when you first set the box up with all the
most popular distros; we had a bit of a discussion about that here
about a month ago.

--
Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Linux lasts longer Nomon Damad NZ Computing 20 01-24-2005 09:59 PM
how can I create a copy of a DataRow that lasts after datatable is cleared? Bennett Haselton ASP .Net 0 11-11-2004 09:35 AM
How long lasts the unicity (if any) of the System.identityHashCode()? NOBODY Java 2 02-02-2004 01:54 PM
Ipod battery only lasts 18months? T.N.O. NZ Computing 8 11-29-2003 06:39 PM



Advertisments