Jay Beale On Overcoming Linux Security Holes

alpinista writes "Sorry, Redmond; according to Jay Beale, it's not yet time to throw away all those pesky insecure Linux boxes. Newsforge interviewed Jay and got some pretty straight talk from a guy that knows more that his share about OS security. In a nutshell: 'Beale's take on how you can make your system more secure, on the Linux vs. Windows security debate, and on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's impact on security testing.'"

Comments

Bastille Linux

[agnosonga]

Linux.com: What's going on with Bastille Linux right now? Where's the project at?

Beale: Well, for readers who don't know, Bastille Linux is a hardening program. Basically, it's a tool that increases the security of a system in every way that we've thought to automate. This includes steps like reconfiguring DNS, Web, FTP and Mail servers for better security, but also includes single-machine or single network firewalls and port scan detection tools.

Now, our most recent piece of good news is that we're officially supporting HP-UX, making our name just slightly inaccurate. Then again, we probably started that trend a few years ago, naming ourselves after a defeated French jail!

you can get it here

Re:A few facts about Microsoft's OS may help.

[duffbeer703]

That article is full of FUD and very misleading.

Suggesting that Windows XP is awful because it is easy to change a user's password if you have physical access is absurd. Has the dope who wrote this every head of "single-user mode" in Unix?

Similarly is the statement criticizing MS for not supporting ghosted system images without sysprep. If you do not use sysprep, the ghosted systems will have the same SID, which opens you up to all sorts of security vulnerabilites.

Microsoft is a shitty company, which plenty of legimate practices to criticize. If you need to use FUD when knocking Windows XP, you need to pursue a new line of work.

another expert on OS security

[belbo]

Security Expert Gives Operating Systems Poor Security Grade

Favourite quote: "Windows is awful, but well, so is Linux."

b.

Re:You make a sweeping claim...

[Yankovic]

No I read that bit. I agree there are components of your article which are true. But I have a paper that says 2+2 = 4 and also 4+4 = 6 and 5+5=11, certainly you would call into question the point of the paper (if any). Your paper's point seems to be to MS's current behavior, and then project future behavior based on that. The fact that most of your factual points today are wrong or grossly distorted seems to indicate that your conclusions would suffer the same maladies.

For example, you state that Windows 98 does not connect to MS computers where as XP can connect to MS computers in 18 ways. This is false. The most of the components you have listed as connecting under Windows XP ALSO can connect under Windows 98. But let's assume that you're correct and that these components don't connect under Windows 98. So what? How many components in DOS 6.22 had a TCP stack? Technologies change, and now that the internet is available (which was in limited scope in 1995-1997 when Win98 was first being built), you would think that they would adopt these components into their architecture. Wouldn't you?

Hidden downloads, etc are just FUD. There's little example of MS doing hidden downloads of any sort. And linking to 4 year old sites about people switching from Windows is great... if you want the story of one person moving. Generally, they have little credibility.

I am not saying anything about the government's case. I AM saying your conclusions are nearly universally wrong, misinformed and flamebait. Your article has little or no worth.