19.04.2024, 02:29 UhrDeutsch | English
Hallo Gast [ Registrierung | Anmelden ]

Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen Druckerfreundliche Version Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen Nächstes Thema anzeigen
Autor Nachricht
piper
Titel:   BeitragVerfasst am: 30.06.2006, 13:15 Uhr
Team Member
Team Member


Anmeldung: 03. Mai 2005
Beiträge: 1544
Wohnort: out there somewhere
noahsark hat folgendes geschrieben::
What would happen to linux if it was undergoing the kind of thorough examination that windows does? Wouldn't people still find holes/bugs to write malware for?


Who says that it's not being thorough examined SmilieWinken

_________________
h2's d-u script
h2's rdiff-backup script
 
 Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen  
Antworten mit Zitat Nach oben
h2
Titel:   BeitragVerfasst am: 30.06.2006, 19:11 Uhr



Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 1005

Linux web servers are hacked constantly. Usually it'd done through unpatched holes in php, various cms/blog/forum software. But it's also done through worms testing for known vulnerabilities. In the cracker world, you get points for hacking in the following order, 1 is the least:

1. Windows pre 2003 servers
2. Windows 2003 servers
3. Linux servers
4. Unix servers

Windows stuff, especially pre 2003, gives very little status because it's so easy to hack. I could post links to relevant sites with more precise hack stats, but I doubt the forum mods would want those linked to here. Plus they don't give the vulnerability exploited, just the OS hosting the server.

By far the biggest factor influencing whether or not as system gets hacked is the skill of the administrator of that system. That means if he/she keeps up with all patches to the system and its applications in a consistent manner.

If you follow sites like www.lwn.net you'll see a weekly report of bug fixes on the major distros, most bug fixes that close security holes. All software has bugs, and anything exposed to the web will have security issues.

Windows, however, on the desktop, because it forces users to run it in admin/root mode [this will not be the case in Vista apparently], gives all vulnerabilities exploited instant access to full system control. Same problem exists with MSIE and Active X. Linux desktops do not have either built in weakness, neither does OS X, so these are by design more secure than windows, no matter what the market share is. OS X, for example, still has no known genuine viruses, though it has been susceptable to more or less the same worm danger that other freebsd systems are.

_________________
Read more on dist-upgrades using du-fixes-h2.sh script.
New: rdiff-backup script
 
 Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden  
Antworten mit Zitat Nach oben
eco2geek
Titel:   BeitragVerfasst am: 04.07.2006, 09:01 Uhr



Anmeldung: 02. Mai 2004
Beiträge: 471
Wohnort: Portland, OR, USA
Piper, I'm not going to argue with you any more. Winken I would say, however, that Windows' popularity certainly is a factor in how often it gets hacked. Of course, the fact that it's apparently so easy to hack is a larger factor.

Anyway, this part of the Cringely column mentioned earlier floored me:
Zitat:
Microsoft is in crisis, and crises sometimes demand bold action. The company is demoralized, and most assuredly HAS seen its best days in terms of market dominance. In short, being Microsoft isn't fun anymore, which probably means that being Bill Gates isn't fun anymore, either. But that, alone, is not reason enough for Gates to leave. Whether he instigated the change or someone else did, Gates had no choice but to take this action to support the value of his own Microsoft shares.

Let me explain through an illustration. Here's how Jeff Angus described Microsoft in an earlier age in his brilliant business book, Managing by Baseball:

"When I worked for a few years at Microsoft Corporation in the early '80s, the company had no decision-making rules whatsoever. Almost none of its managers had management training, and few had even a shred of management aptitude. When it came to what looked like less important decisions, most just guessed. When it came to the more important ones, they typically tried to model their choices on powerful people above them in the hierarchy. Almost nothing operational was written down...The tragedy wasn't that so many poor decisions got made -- as a functional monopoly, Microsoft had the cash flow to insulate itself from the most severe consequences -- but that no one cared to track and codify past failures as a way to help managers create guidelines of paths to follow and avoid."

Fine, you say, but that was Microsoft more than 20 years ago. How about today?

Nothing has changed except that the company is 10 times bigger, which means it is 10 times more screwed-up.

Think about that for a moment. If it's true, it means that Microsoft got to where it is today, with almost no business skills whatsoever.

Now that's breathtaking.
 
 Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden  
Antworten mit Zitat Nach oben
Beiträge vom vorherigen Thema anzeigen:     
Gehe zu:  
Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen Druckerfreundliche Version Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen Nächstes Thema anzeigen
PNphpBB2 © 2003-2007 
 
Deutsch | English
Logos and trademarks are the property of their respective owners, comments are property of their posters, the rest is © 2004 - 2006 by Jörg Schirottke (Kano).
Consult Impressum and Legal Terms for details. Kanotix is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
This CMS is powered by PostNuke, all themes used at this site are released under the GNU/GPL license. designed and hosted by w3you. Our web server is running on Kanotix64-2006.