Comments on: Linux boxes and ‘hackability’ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3381 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3381/comment-page-1#comment-8569 Reader's Write Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:59:36 +0000 #comment-8569 There is a good study about this You can see it (in pdf format) here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux.pdf The gist is that vulnerability of Linux is not entirely because it is in the minority. A comparison is made between IIS and Apache webservers. Apache is by far the more popular, will run on Linux and Windows and has had far fewer comprimises that IIS and note, the problems it did have were worse when it ran on Windows than on Linux. The monolithic design of Windows made it more vulnerable because a flaw in one component could be exploited much further. By comparison, flaws running on any Unix type system, including Linux, were confined to the one application and generally could not be exploited to comprimise the whole system. Many attacks are successful because of weak passwords; with modern cracking tools these can be successful against a theoretically invulnerable system at least to get into it. One wonders what strength the passwords were for the honeypots. I know one version of NT, for example, woud only allow 8 character passwords (to be entered) although internally they could be 16 characters. I remember similar restrictions to Red Hat 5.2 (Ancient History now). ....Dave Dawson beagleseven7777(AT)yahoo.ca . There is a good study about this
You can see it (in pdf format) here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux.pdf

The gist is that vulnerability of Linux is not entirely because it is in the minority. A comparison is made between IIS and Apache webservers.
Apache is by far the more popular, will run on Linux and Windows and has had far fewer comprimises that IIS and note, the problems it did have were worse when it ran on Windows than on Linux. The monolithic design of Windows made it more vulnerable because a flaw in one component could be exploited much further. By comparison, flaws running on any Unix type system, including Linux, were confined to the one application and generally could not be exploited to comprimise the whole system.

Many attacks are successful because of weak passwords; with modern cracking tools these can be successful against a theoretically invulnerable system at least to get into it.

One wonders what strength the passwords were for the honeypots.
I know one version of NT, for example, woud only allow 8 character passwords (to be entered) although internally they could be 16 characters.

I remember similar restrictions to Red Hat 5.2 (Ancient History now).

….Dave Dawson beagleseven7777(AT)yahoo.ca
.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3381/comment-page-1#comment-8120 Reader's Write Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:10:00 +0000 #comment-8120 First of all, Your a fucking idiot if you run any box on the net that isn't behind a firewall; I don't care if it's linux or windows. Many "hacks" can easily be prevented by securing the fucking box. First of all,

Your a fucking idiot if you run any box on the net that isn’t behind a firewall; I don’t care if it’s linux or windows. Many “hacks” can easily be prevented by securing the fucking box.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3381/comment-page-1#comment-8037 Reader's Write Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:07:05 +0000 #comment-8037 I fix pc's for a living and this is the greatest news I've ever heard. This even tops y2K. I fix pc’s for a living and this is the greatest news I’ve ever heard. This even tops y2K.

]]>