sick of Linux bias

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Alastair Smeaton, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. lots of drivel snipped

    If you wanna upgrade from say mandrake 8 to Mandrake 9 or 10, download
    the distro and install.

    in what way is this different from Windows ?

    I can appreciate that there are a few Linux devotees here, but you are
    unlikely to win them over by this kind of childish inaccurate post.
    Alastair Smeaton, Jan 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. It is inaccurate because you said that this is what you do if you want
    to upgrade.

    If you want to upgrade the kernel, as someone who knows only a little
    about Linux, I know of, and have done this 2 ways - recompiled a new
    kernel from source (what you described) or install a new version of
    Linux, which comes with a pre-compiled version of the kernel. - Like
    upgrading Win98 to XP.

    I could lift some text from the Microsoft Knowledge Base and tell you
    "look, see what you have to do when you install Windows" - it would
    not be true, simply because I take it from Microsoft directly.

    I stand by my post - you were inaccurate, misleading, and provocative
    for the sake of it. If someone talking about Linux bothers you, learn
    how to configure usenet filters. I don't read any posts here which
    talk about using iptables as a firewall method - cos I don't use Linux
    - easy :)

    FWIW - I run XP, prefer it to the various distros of Linux I have
    tried - but if you wanna bash Linux, you need to do better than what
    you have said so far.
    Alastair Smeaton, Jan 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Guest

    Here is a little article for all of you linux boys out there who feel
    Linux has little to no security flaws. I am looking for the article now
    and will post later, but do any of you remember how the back door trjan
    almost made it into the kernel?

    Open Source and Secure just dont go hand in hand.

    Jim, Jan 5, 2004
  4. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Guest

    If you do need to upgrade, luckily Linux has made the process simple.
    Below you can find the instructions for upgrading. If you have problems,
    there is no real support so use google or a newsgroup and hope that
    whoever helps you actually knows what they are doing. Then when you need
    to call in an expert to pull you out, explain to your company that the
    software is 'free'. ;)

    CONFIGURING the kernel:

    - do a "make config" to configure the basic kernel. "make config"
    needs bash to work: it will search for bash in $BASH, /bin/bash and
    /bin/sh (in that order), so hopefully one of those is correct.

    - Alternate configuration commands are:
    "make menuconfig" Text based color menus, radiolists & dialogs.
    "make xconfig" X windows based configuration tool.

    NOTES on "make config":
    - having unnecessary drivers will make the kernel bigger, and can
    under some circumstances lead to problems: probing for a
    nonexistent controller card may confuse your other controllers
    - compiling the kernel with "Processor type" set higher than 386
    will result in a kernel that does NOT work on a 386. The
    kernel will detect this on bootup, and give up.
    - A kernel with math-emulation compiled in will still use the
    coprocessor if one is present: the math emulation will just
    never get used in that case. The kernel will be slightly larger,
    but will work on different machines regardless of whether they
    have a math coprocessor or not.
    - the "kernel hacking" configuration details usually result in a
    bigger or slower kernel (or both), and can even make the kernel
    less stable by configuring some routines to actively try to
    break bad code to find kernel problems (kmalloc()). Thus you
    should probably answer 'n' to the questions for a "production"

    - Check the top Makefile for further site-dependent configuration
    (default SVGA mode etc).

    - Finally, do a "make dep" to set up all the dependencies correctly.

    COMPILING the kernel:

    - make sure you have gcc-2.6.3 or newer available. It seems older gcc
    versions can have problems compiling newer versions of linux. If you
    upgrade your compiler, remember to get the new binutils package too
    (for as/ld/nm and company).

    - do a "make zImage" to create a compressed kernel image. If you want
    to make a bootdisk (without root filesystem or lilo), insert a floppy
    in your A: drive, and do a "make zdisk". It is also possible to do
    "make zlilo" if you have lilo installed to suit the kernel makefiles,
    but you may want to check your particular lilo setup first.

    - if your kernel is too large for "make zImage", use "make bzImage"

    - if you configured any of the parts of the kernel as `modules', you
    will have to do "make modules" followed by "make modules_install".
    Read Documentation/modules.txt for more information. For example,
    an explanation of how to use the modules is included there.

    - keep a backup kernel handy in case something goes wrong. This is
    especially true for the development releases, since each new release
    contains new code which has not been debugged.

    - In order to boot your new kernel, you'll need to copy the kernel
    image (found in /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/zImage after compilation)
    to the place where your regular bootable kernel is found.

    For some, this is on a floppy disk, in which case you can "cp
    /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/zImage /dev/fd0" to make a bootable
    floppy. Note that as of Linux 2.0.0, a kernel copied to a 720k
    double-density 3.5" floppy disk no longer boots. In this case,
    it is highly recommended that you install LILO on your
    double-density bootfloppy or switch to high-density floppies.

    If you boot Linux from the hard drive, chances are you use LILO which
    uses the kernel image as specified in the file /etc/lilo.conf. The
    kernel image file is usually /vmlinuz, or /zImage, or /etc/zImage.
    To use the new kernel, copy the new image over the old one (save a
    backup of the original!). Then, you MUST RERUN LILO to update the
    loading map!! If you don't, you won't be able to boot the new kernel

    Reinstalling LILO is usually a matter of running /sbin/lilo.
    You may wish to edit /etc/lilo.conf to specify an entry for your
    old kernel image (say, /vmlinux.old) in case the new one does not
    work. See the LILO docs for more information.

    After reinstalling LILO, you should be all set. Shutdown the system,
    reboot, and enjoy!

    If you ever need to change the default root device, video mode,
    ramdisk size, etc. in the kernel image, use the 'rdev' program (or
    alternatively the LILO boot options when appropriate). No need to
    recompile the kernel to change these parameters.

    - reboot with the new kernel and enjoy.


    Jim Wasted my time by saying: on 1/5/2004 4:51 PM:
    Jim, Jan 5, 2004
  5. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Guest

    Inaccurate? That is straight from the linux support site. Are you saying
    that all linux distibs are handled differently? That makes it much more
    appealing and even easier to support.

    I especially love the part in the doc, 'so hopefully one of those is
    correct.' I am not trying to win anyone over. I am sick of the linux
    bitches out there with bitch attitudes about security etc.


    Alastair Smeaton Wasted my time by saying: on 1/4/2004 5:17 PM:
    Jim, Jan 5, 2004
  6. Alastair Smeaton

    Bit Twister Guest

    There are over 190 linuxs out there. Each vendor decides what kernel
    that they are supporting.
    Yes, it is hard when there are 70 new virus a week and micro$not is on
    one operating system NOT (95, 88, ce, nt, 2k, xp, xp pro, . .

    Looking at the microsoft database of exploits shows linux has much
    less problems.
    Bit Twister, Jan 5, 2004
  7. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Guest

    Everyone attacks the winner. What fun is there in kicking someone when
    they are already down?


    Bit Twister Wasted my time by saying: on 1/5/2004 5:28 PM:
    Jim, Jan 5, 2004
  8. Alastair Smeaton

    Bit Twister Guest

    Thank you for acknowledging linux is better.
    Yes, thay is why Micor$not is giving 95% cost reductions just to keep
    their customers.
    The IT industry is shifting away from Microsoft
    Bit Twister, Jan 5, 2004
  9. Gee, I love a good food fight!

    I don't know Linux well enough to criticize it, or probably secure it. On the
    other hand, I have been running Windows on the internet for ten years without a
    single infection, invasion, exploit, or even a mild head cold because I do know
    the system well enough to secure it. So for me, Windows is a more secure system.

    All the banter about which system is more secure or more vulnerable is just
    noise. Windows is just a bigger target filled with largely uninformed users. If
    Linux ever makes the transition from lunatic fringe to mainstream, exploits will
    breed like rabbits. The Linux evangelists are cutting their own throats.
    \Crash\ Dummy, Jan 5, 2004
  10. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Watt Guest

    Given a choice open source has its attractions, and the fact
    that people find and fix flaws is positive.

    I'd not run Win/XP and had over my machine to MS.
    Jim Watt, Jan 5, 2004
  11. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Guest

    Exactly!! I just cant stand to hear the Nix bitches whine any more. They
    are driving me crazy with their arrogance and not to mention their pony


    "Crash" Dummy Wasted my time by saying: on 1/5/2004 6:07 PM:
    Jim, Jan 5, 2004
  12. Alastair Smeaton

    Jim Watt Guest

    And we laugh at trolls too,
    Jim Watt, Jan 5, 2004
  13. Alastair Smeaton

    Seth Guest

    RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 makes it a lot easier to apply patches, check
    for updates, even install a new kernel. And, just to make you feel
    better, they make you pay. (I can't believe I just said that.)

    But then, I'm not running a firewall on this OS yet. I'll be starting
    with IPTABLES.

    FWIW, a funny thing's happing in medical imaging. Solarix and Irix are
    being dumped for Windows. And some RedHet Linux. This is the kind of
    system a built-in firewall would be useful for (think university
    hospital and big hard drives and machines with 5 and 6 zereoes!!!!)
    Seth, Jan 5, 2004
  14. Exactly!! I just cant stand to hear the Nix bitches whine any more. They
    Watch the sterotypes. My ponytail reaches my ass, and I'm as arrogant as they
    \Crash\ Dummy, Jan 5, 2004
  15. Alastair Smeaton

    Leythos Guest

    When you choose and OS it's almost like a religious experience. If you
    open your eyes to many different platforms you will see that all of them
    have issues and benefits.

    Some people benefit from one and some from the other, but not all of
    them will benefit from a single OS source.

    The idea of open-source has been around a long time, I was coding in the
    early 70's and, while not called open-source, contributed many works.
    I've also designed on about every platform out there.

    I use Windows XP Prof for my main workstations and laptops - it's easy,
    convenient, and secure. I use Windows 2000 Server and 2003 Server for my
    MS based platforms and Red Hat 9.1 for my Nix based servers.

    I have no bias for either platform, but I can say this - most "home"
    users would not benefit from a Linux system unless they were ONLY
    browsing the web and sending email. Linux require some technical
    experience for most users and while not anywhere near as large a target,
    it does have its holes.

    For what it's worth, if you run a Windows based system you don't have to
    hand anything over to MS, they just want to stop pirates with their
    activation system, but I can assure you that there is nothing funny
    going on - it would show in my firewall logs if there were.

    You might want to know that you can get MS Server 2003 and 10 licenses
    for XP Prof and Office 2003, project 2003, Visio 2003, etc.. on MS's
    site for $299... So, there you go, all the licenses and software you
    could need, for the cost of the OS alone.
    Leythos, Jan 6, 2004
  16. Alastair Smeaton

    Leythos Guest

    If you want to see another example, I'm setting up a medical center on a
    MS platform - 56 workstations and 8 servers with multiple hardware
    firewalls and remote access for the doctors. The imaging system is a
    Sun, but all viewing is done on a Win box.

    We had a choice of Linux, but the users want something they already know
    - MS Outlook, Office XP, etc....
    Leythos, Jan 6, 2004
  17. On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:28:24 GMT, Bit Twister spoketh
    That's a gross exaggeration, and very misleading. Yes, there are more
    viruses/worms for Microsoft Windows, there's no denying that. People
    write software (even malware) for the leading OS and applications. The
    vulnerabilities in Outlook and Outlook Express makes e-mail the prime
    delivery mechanism for infection.

    However, I'd like to see what database of exploits you've looked at to
    determine that linux has much less problems. I did a comparison of
    errata from RedHat and Microsoft about a year ago, and they were pretty
    much tied with regards to serious vulnerabilities. Actually, over the 6
    month period for which I compared, RedHat came out with a few more
    patches for its RH7.x than Microsoft did for Windows 2000...

    Lars M. Hansen
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
    Lars M. Hansen, Jan 6, 2004
  18. Alastair Smeaton

    John Guest

    Oh yeah? Well I don't have a pony-tail and I'm just as arrogant as you.
    What's more, I bet I am at least as stupid as Jim, well, maybe not half as
    stupid. He seems REALLY dumb! What an ultra-maroon (with
    respect paid to Bugs Bunny).
    John, Jan 6, 2004
  19. Alastair Smeaton

    Bit Twister Guest

    Frap, looking through my small ms rock pile of 23 urls shows three of the
    links gone obsolete. I had a link on a article which had a link which
    dropped me into the Microsoft database index where I could just scroll
    up and down titles. It was either in one of those or an article I had seen
    before I started collecting rocks to throw at win trolls.
    Bit Twister, Jan 6, 2004
  20. Alastair Smeaton

    Charter Guest

    Anyone who thinks their stuff is unhackable is smoking crack.
    Almost doesn't mean it did.
    Says who? Do you have proof, or just some website you found?
    While I don't hate windows, it is NOT up to par with Linux in terms of
    potential security and stability that Linux has to offer. I know this
    first hand because I have a blended network here at home.
    But nothing is unhackable, so remember that. If it was about all-out
    CIA-level security, I'd be using FreeBSD, and that's my opinion.
    But don't post on here saying "I'm sick of this" or whatever. Read. I
    understand how it is to be angry about stuff, but please control your
    And however, security and open source don't go hand in hand any more than
    french fries and catsup (cause I don't use catsup and I don't like it).
    Here are my thoughts:

    1) (National Security Agency / CIA) put out a Linux kernel that's a
    lot more "unhackable", but it's got custom stuff on it.
    2) Any operating system can be made more secure than it is "out of the box"
    by an intelligent admin. Linux people have more control over what's going
    on "under the hood", which can help, however.
    3) Security is a LOT more than firewalls and such. However, Linux comes
    with a very impressive firewall: IPTables.
    4) Most "hacks" are still done by insiders (fellow employees) than from the
    5) Read the Microsoft windows has had more viruses and patches than
    Linux has recently. However, statistics are easily manipulated, remember
    that. But this is mainly due to file system permissions in my opinion.
    6) Open source doesn't make anything better without someone who knows how to
    program it for more security.
    7) Open source is a two-edged sword. While it means more people are looking
    at the code and trying to make it more secure / stable (look at FreeBSD: it
    has a following of good programmers whose main goal is security, or so it
    seems), it also means that anyone else can download it and view it and, if
    they're a hacker, find a way in.

    So please think before you generalize.
    Charter, Jan 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.