S
ShockingAlberto
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
I would take a guess that a large number of the Linux security vulnerabilities were those of internal security, ie users being able to access stuff they shouldn't.
The fact stands, Linux is far more secure from any malicous code(ie virii). For instance, no program can mess with the actualy OS, unless you run it as a privilaged user... It is the security flaws in Windows software that make it insecure, so i have a feeling these aren't included. If you consider the way Outlook handles emails, and the way IE has so much power over the OS, you can see that Windows is far more vulnerable..
The fact stands, Linux is far more secure from any malicous code(ie virii). For instance, no program can mess with the actualy OS, unless you run it as a privilaged user... It is the security flaws in Windows software that make it insecure, so i have a feeling these aren't included. If you consider the way Outlook handles emails, and the way IE has so much power over the OS, you can see that Windows is far more vulnerable..
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
I hoped you should show a little bit of effort in your response but clearly not. Morons who go on about the number of viruses that Windows has clearly know jack shit about the reason why viruses are written in the first place. If you create a virus then you go for maximum damage and thus creating a virus for Linux is pointless since it has so little of the market compared to Windows and also Windows has all of the new user market, these are fools who are easy to trick. Not that Linux never gets viruses:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1127965
Again stupid users are the main reason viruses spread not OSes although how an operating system operates can affect the damage rate.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
Chop chop TDC 
S
ShockingAlberto
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
Very much so(reguarding your lasdt comment).
I believe if Windows didn't make files executable by file extension, or give any OS proper OS controlt o programs unless run by a specific user, then virri, and trojans wouldn't be the problem they are.
Outlook, and to some extent IE are also a reason why virii spread. With the latest bugs where a website can get information about your MSN stuff, i don't think you can deny such claims.
I believe if Windows didn't make files executable by file extension, or give any OS proper OS controlt o programs unless run by a specific user, then virri, and trojans wouldn't be the problem they are.
Outlook, and to some extent IE are also a reason why virii spread. With the latest bugs where a website can get information about your MSN stuff, i don't think you can deny such claims.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
I'm not but again the MSN related bug isn't something thing that just affects MSN.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
BTW:
S
ShockingAlberto
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
This is my point. It's not the 3rd party software that's causing problems, it's MS' own code, that is shipped with every copy of windows.
What newbie won't use IE for their web browser? What newbie won't use Outlook, or use MSN when his mates wanna contact him, and tell him it ownz0rs!?
What newbie won't use IE for their web browser? What newbie won't use Outlook, or use MSN when his mates wanna contact him, and tell him it ownz0rs!?
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
IE/Outlook are both secure and MS is well known for updating any problems with any of it's software fast.
MSN is still not the most popular message client although being bundle in with XP will change that.
Then again the article refers to server versions of Windows 2000 not any thing that you've just gone on about, client versions. The main one I remember on windows servers was the Namida worm which MS provided an update for before it hit although many admins didn't use it.
MSN is still not the most popular message client although being bundle in with XP will change that.
Then again the article refers to server versions of Windows 2000 not any thing that you've just gone on about, client versions. The main one I remember on windows servers was the Namida worm which MS provided an update for before it hit although many admins didn't use it.
S
ShockingAlberto
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
I believe IIs has suffered from many worms, allthough i don't really know anything about it.
Outlook's feature that makes it exec executables automatically is very nasty, and i believe you cannot disable html email without installing 3rd party hacks. These are the reasons why Virii have been as effective as they have.
Outlook's feature that makes it exec executables automatically is very nasty, and i believe you cannot disable html email without installing 3rd party hacks. These are the reasons why Virii have been as effective as they have.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #11
I'm sure that feature isn't active in mine
Viruses have been affective because people open them without thinking and since autosend if on by default it's easy to spread.
Viruses have been affective because people open them without thinking and since autosend if on by default it's easy to spread.
S
ShockingAlberto
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
You could say Windows is to blame for the lack of security knowledge amongst alot of desktop users...
The fact that many people don't realise there's no reason why anything should be a `.exe file' unless it's a program. I'm sure they allready know that pr0n isn't a program...
The fact that many people don't realise there's no reason why anything should be a `.exe file' unless it's a program. I'm sure they allready know that pr0n isn't a program...
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #13
Hmmm...ok.
S
SoWat
Guest
- Thread starter
- #14
A lot of people use Chilton Preview to disable HTML in Outlook's preview pane. This has the added benefit of allowing you to see the URLs for HTML items.
I have Zonealarm set so that it renames attachments that 'could' be malicious (it does tell you what they were before!).
Allied to the above, I have a decent AV scanner.
I've never had a virus, trojan, or anything malicious trample over my OS (my own 'tweaking' does more than enough damage thx ).
I have Zonealarm set so that it renames attachments that 'could' be malicious (it does tell you what they were before!).
Allied to the above, I have a decent AV scanner.
I've never had a virus, trojan, or anything malicious trample over my OS (my own 'tweaking' does more than enough damage thx ).
S
SoWat
Guest
- Thread starter
- #15
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #16
Imho there is no point in comparing the potential security issues of an OS. An OS is as secure as it's admin makes it. If the admin is an idiot the server or desktop will be insecure.
Now microsoft, in the interest of making it's products all fluffy and userfriendly, has a very very weak default security policy. Strangely, almost all the default linux distros also have a rather weak dsp. Ok, but not as harsh as I would like to have it. This is probably because they want to be fluffy and friendly too, running lots of apps, opening lots of doors.
Anyhoo, almost every OS has it's own built-in update thing. They have websites warning of potential problems and delivering patches. They have all kinds of online papers detailing every little thing about the OS.
The real problem begins with the apps. You want an ftp server? Sure, we can do that. Misconfigure it and your system instantly becomes a glass house.
I can understand why the article tries to paint [linux]unix a dark horse. Unix runs a lot of services by default that are considered 'unsafe' in this day and age. The 'unix' OS is a collection of a zillion apps all bundled together in a nice package. That equates to a lot of possible open doors.
The 'joe average' linux user, while prolly knowing a bit more about what he/she is doing than the windows counterpart, will on average know feck all about hardening a system and configuring apps securely. They don't realize that they are expected to learn these things. If push comes to shove they don't want to learn those things. They will want to run things as root/Administrator because 'it's so easy to install stuff'. What stuff? A DoS client installed remotely by a laughing scriptkiddie?
Imo the true security problem on every system is not an obscure problem in the networking code of a USB2 device. It's not a malformed request hack to a little known finger client running under a certain shell. The true problem is that the user wants everything to be easy and the admin wants everything to be hard. A compromise has been made, slightly left of center and now your system is vulnerable.
Now microsoft, in the interest of making it's products all fluffy and userfriendly, has a very very weak default security policy. Strangely, almost all the default linux distros also have a rather weak dsp. Ok, but not as harsh as I would like to have it. This is probably because they want to be fluffy and friendly too, running lots of apps, opening lots of doors.
Anyhoo, almost every OS has it's own built-in update thing. They have websites warning of potential problems and delivering patches. They have all kinds of online papers detailing every little thing about the OS.
The real problem begins with the apps. You want an ftp server? Sure, we can do that. Misconfigure it and your system instantly becomes a glass house.
I can understand why the article tries to paint [linux]unix a dark horse. Unix runs a lot of services by default that are considered 'unsafe' in this day and age. The 'unix' OS is a collection of a zillion apps all bundled together in a nice package. That equates to a lot of possible open doors.
The 'joe average' linux user, while prolly knowing a bit more about what he/she is doing than the windows counterpart, will on average know feck all about hardening a system and configuring apps securely. They don't realize that they are expected to learn these things. If push comes to shove they don't want to learn those things. They will want to run things as root/Administrator because 'it's so easy to install stuff'. What stuff? A DoS client installed remotely by a laughing scriptkiddie?
Imo the true security problem on every system is not an obscure problem in the networking code of a USB2 device. It's not a malformed request hack to a little known finger client running under a certain shell. The true problem is that the user wants everything to be easy and the admin wants everything to be hard. A compromise has been made, slightly left of center and now your system is vulnerable.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #17
True...as pointed out most MS product users are donuts
N
Nozzer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #18
I'm sure TDC made this point (I didn't read his post ) but Linux virii are fewer in number because of the OS' reluctancy to run binaries that are... Oh what's the word? Fuck it. You know what I mean.
) but Linux virii are fewer in number because of the OS' reluctancy to run binaries that are... Oh what's the word? Fuck it. You know what I mean.
T
Testin da Cable
Guest
- Thread starter
- #19
well...there is the thing about not bothering with linux because one can take out half the known fscking world with a tiny bit of visual basic heh
but that would target desktops instead of servers
but that would target desktops instead of servers