Linux lasts longer

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004.

  1. Interesting item
    <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer flaws/210
    0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
    incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mark S Guest

    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 D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer flaws/210
    > 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
    > incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
     
    Mark S, Dec 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mark S Guest

    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 D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer flaws/210
    > 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
    > incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
     
    Mark S, Dec 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <41cb9d1f$>, thing <> 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.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <41cb9d1f$>, thing <> 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.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Steve Guest

    thing wrote:
    > Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting item
    >> <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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
     
    Steve, Dec 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Steve Guest

    thing wrote:
    > Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting item
    >> <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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
     
    Steve, Dec 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Chris Hope Guest

    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/
     
    Chris Hope, Dec 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Chris Hope Guest

    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/
     
    Chris Hope, Dec 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mercury Guest

    Creative reporting.

    It only says Win32. Win32 is on Win95, 98, ME, NT, XP, 2003.
    It omits to say which versions were compromised.
    It omits to say which versions were not compromised.

    The *only* thing you could conclude is that Linux has improved.

    There is inadequate information given in the report to say anything about
    windows.

    To be frank. The article has no professional integrity. No professional with
    integrity would ever allow the pulication of such an article in such an
    abridged format if they had actually performed the "experiments" as eluded.
    (The documentation of their method is also inadequate).

    Propaganda. Crap.

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer flaws/210
    > 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
    > incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
     
    Mercury, Dec 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mercury Guest

    Creative reporting.

    It only says Win32. Win32 is on Win95, 98, ME, NT, XP, 2003.
    It omits to say which versions were compromised.
    It omits to say which versions were not compromised.

    The *only* thing you could conclude is that Linux has improved.

    There is inadequate information given in the report to say anything about
    windows.

    To be frank. The article has no professional integrity. No professional with
    integrity would ever allow the pulication of such an article in such an
    abridged format if they had actually performed the "experiments" as eluded.
    (The documentation of their method is also inadequate).

    Propaganda. Crap.

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting item
    > <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer flaws/210
    > 0-1002_3-5489804.html> suggests that Linux has a lower-than-average
    > incidence of bugs compared to typical commercial software.
     
    Mercury, Dec 24, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <cqh5f6$pt3$>, "Mercury" <>
    wrote:

    >It only says Win32. Win32 is on Win95, 98, ME, NT, XP, 2003.
    >It omits to say which versions were compromised.
    >It omits to say which versions were not compromised.


    "While some of the Windows XP systems on the honeynets used for
    the latest study were compromised within minutes of being placed on
    the Internet, newer versions of the Linux operating system from Red
    Hat failed to be compromised by random attacks for more than two
    months."

    >The *only* thing you could conclude is that Linux has improved.


    In which case, you can also conclude that Windows has got worse.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <cqh5f6$pt3$>, "Mercury" <>
    wrote:

    >It only says Win32. Win32 is on Win95, 98, ME, NT, XP, 2003.
    >It omits to say which versions were compromised.
    >It omits to say which versions were not compromised.


    "While some of the Windows XP systems on the honeynets used for
    the latest study were compromised within minutes of being placed on
    the Internet, newer versions of the Linux operating system from Red
    Hat failed to be compromised by random attacks for more than two
    months."

    >The *only* thing you could conclude is that Linux has improved.


    In which case, you can also conclude that Windows has got worse.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Dec 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <41cb9d1f$>, thing <> 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.


    A built in firewall iptables that comes with Linux, not the joke ones
    that are in XP. The problem is, securing the box properly means a huge
    learning curve for
    most ppl in the real world to get things going. So what has MS done? it
    has compromised made their OS usable for joe duh which means hackable by
    jim pro.

    So if Joe Duh had to jump through the hoops to make Windows work
    properly, would he still find it easier than Linux? I suspect not, in
    fact worse.

    >>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.


    In the last 6 months I have come across and amazing amount of "sys
    admins" (plus "consultants") who have virtually no clue on setting up an
    email server properly. If they have done the rest of ther OS as badly as
    the SMTP part then I am really concerned.

    Windows certainly lends itself to the anybody can install it category,
    beyond that its a f*ck up waiting for the next cd inserter and click OK
    type IMHO.

    Bill Gates is infamous for saying Windows is easy to install etc, yet in
    reality it is no easier to keep secure than Linux. In either case if you
    know what you are doing you can keep the OS secure, though I am less
    certain that is possible with Windows than Linux. Add something not
    often mentioned, when you do start to tie an MS down have found its
    performance suffers, while Linux's does not seem to de-grade.

    >>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.


    I would contend that servers which are usually looked after by sys
    admins generally stay pretty secure whatever the OS.

    Traditionally servers were connected to high bandwidth while home users
    usually had dialup. These days Broadband availability means always on
    and hence always vunerable, added to profesionals looking to hack "you"
    and we have multiple vectors converging to beat the sh*te out of XP etc.

    The question is will Linux fair as well when it has a decent % of the
    desktop market....time will tell...

    Merry Xmas

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <41cb9d1f$>, thing <> 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.


    A built in firewall iptables that comes with Linux, not the joke ones
    that are in XP. The problem is, securing the box properly means a huge
    learning curve for
    most ppl in the real world to get things going. So what has MS done? it
    has compromised made their OS usable for joe duh which means hackable by
    jim pro.

    So if Joe Duh had to jump through the hoops to make Windows work
    properly, would he still find it easier than Linux? I suspect not, in
    fact worse.

    >>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.


    In the last 6 months I have come across and amazing amount of "sys
    admins" (plus "consultants") who have virtually no clue on setting up an
    email server properly. If they have done the rest of ther OS as badly as
    the SMTP part then I am really concerned.

    Windows certainly lends itself to the anybody can install it category,
    beyond that its a f*ck up waiting for the next cd inserter and click OK
    type IMHO.

    Bill Gates is infamous for saying Windows is easy to install etc, yet in
    reality it is no easier to keep secure than Linux. In either case if you
    know what you are doing you can keep the OS secure, though I am less
    certain that is possible with Windows than Linux. Add something not
    often mentioned, when you do start to tie an MS down have found its
    performance suffers, while Linux's does not seem to de-grade.

    >>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.


    I would contend that servers which are usually looked after by sys
    admins generally stay pretty secure whatever the OS.

    Traditionally servers were connected to high bandwidth while home users
    usually had dialup. These days Broadband availability means always on
    and hence always vunerable, added to profesionals looking to hack "you"
    and we have multiple vectors converging to beat the sh*te out of XP etc.

    The question is will Linux fair as well when it has a decent % of the
    desktop market....time will tell...

    Merry Xmas

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> Interesting item
    >>> <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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.


    Linux having a stateful firewall that remembers the outgoing stuff
    should mean that there is no more risk in using it as not. The problem
    arrises when incoming port connetions are allowed. Then if the
    underlying OS has not been hardened and maintained.......

    >
    >>
    >> 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.


    Thats OK, it sounds like the feeling would be mutual.

    Attitude? please do explain....

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

    > And ostriches for administrators.


    Lots of those, and I have found the "olde world" unix admins about the
    worst...few believe in patching, not many on hardening the OS, fewer
    still in putting a firewall on every box no matter where it is in the
    network....

    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing
    >>

    > Steve


    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > thing wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> Interesting item
    >>> <http://news.com.com/Linux lasting longer against Net attacks/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 research suggests Linux has fewer 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.


    Linux having a stateful firewall that remembers the outgoing stuff
    should mean that there is no more risk in using it as not. The problem
    arrises when incoming port connetions are allowed. Then if the
    underlying OS has not been hardened and maintained.......

    >
    >>
    >> 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.


    Thats OK, it sounds like the feeling would be mutual.

    Attitude? please do explain....

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

    > And ostriches for administrators.


    Lots of those, and I have found the "olde world" unix admins about the
    worst...few believe in patching, not many on hardening the OS, fewer
    still in putting a firewall on every box no matter where it is in the
    network....

    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing
    >>

    > Steve


    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <cqh5f6$pt3$>, "Mercury" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It only says Win32. Win32 is on Win95, 98, ME, NT, XP, 2003.
    >>It omits to say which versions were compromised.
    >>It omits to say which versions were not compromised.

    >
    >
    > "While some of the Windows XP systems on the honeynets used for
    > the latest study were compromised within minutes of being placed on
    > the Internet, newer versions of the Linux operating system from Red
    > Hat failed to be compromised by random attacks for more than two
    > months."
    >
    >
    >>The *only* thing you could conclude is that Linux has improved.

    >
    >
    > In which case, you can also conclude that Windows has got worse.


    I believe windows has got better, except the "opposition" has raised the
    bar faster, so relatively Windows is faring worse.

    Pre-2003 we had kids and wierdos doing viruses and hacks. Post-2002 we
    have pros looking to make money in serious amounts, I dont think at
    present MS will be able to keep up, its an easy target and the pros know
    it.

    OSS has shrugged off any attack on it, in terms of legal, performance
    and quality issues. When the pros turn against Linux as viciously, I
    believe Linux will fair far better but I expect some serious goes.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Dec 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. T.N.O.

    Ipod battery only lasts 18months?

    T.N.O., Nov 28, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    474
    T.N.O.
    Nov 29, 2003
  2. Frank Osborn

    DVD Recoarders, no suitable media that lasts..?

    Frank Osborn, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    574
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Feb 16, 2004
  3. Nomon Damad

    Re: Linux lasts longer

    Nomon Damad, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    760
    Bruce Sinclair
    Jan 24, 2005
  4. thingy

    Looking for a gaming mouse that lasts

    thingy, Jun 14, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    846
    thingy
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Roky

    standby mode lasts only a few seconds.

    Roky, Aug 10, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,086
Loading...

Share This Page