Slashdot Mirror
Linux Most Attacked Server?
Anonymous guy who can't remember his login sent in a story from the Globe And Mail that says "During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers."
Funding provided by Microsoft....
Where ever you go, there you are.
But think of how many more linux servers are out there than windows servers.......
We're number one! We're number one! Woo! Party!
Er... wait, what? Is this a good thing?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Good god sir, do you know where you are posting this? ;]
On the surface, this statistic serves both as a testament to linux's growing popularity as a server OS and ammo for those windows admins who have long taken abuses about the insecure nature of their OS. These ideas, particularly the latter, however, may prove misguided; breaches against servers are rooted not only in the security of their running OS, but also in the effectiveness of the security implementation of the system admin him/herself.
Okay... do the editors read the links anymore?
This clearly came from Canada's Globe and Mail newsmapaper, which is clearly has nothing in common with the British Broadcasting Company
Does this count the number of Windows machines that were 'compromised' by BLASTER and its children? If someone gets a binary on my server and controls what my server does ( in this case, replicating the worm ), then I'd call that hacked. Just because a worm did it vs. a human doesn't mean anything. More direct hacks on Linux machines might just mean that there was much more human effort expended.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
How do these numbers relate to the number of servers which are 'attackable' by hackers? ...even assuming (as they do) that home desktop machines on DSL/cable modems which are compromised (by worms or hackers) are not considered 'server attacks'.
Well, they don't say that, but if you include the number of infected Windows desktops this year, I have a pretty good feeling it would be a LOT more than 12,000, even if you only include infections designed to give control to an outside party (as opposed to simply spreading).
It's ironic that Microsoft provides that service for free, whereas Linux requires paying money. But it's good because at least here there's a clear way to make money off Free Software and keep programmers like me from going hungry.
John.
So, I wonder....the interesting statistic to me would be what percentage of attacks against each platform are successful? This statistic is not explicitly stated. Also did they include OS X as part of the study?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
These figures correspond almost directly to netcraft. Seems to me, more linux/apache boxes out on the net means more targets. IIS holds about 24% and apache is about 64%. DUH. Its not hard to see that there will be more attacks if there are more machines. I bet they didnt factor how many OS/2 boxes got attacked.
Statistics are dumb.
The overall economic damage in August from overt and covert attacks as well as viruses and worms stood at an all-time high of $28.2-billion.
So while these "attacks" on servers totalling about the same damage amounts as usual there was quite a new record high obtained by the RPC vunerability...
So they are attacking an OS that is known to be running on more servers around the world and the "damage" from these attacks is holding steady, yet we don't mention in the article title that because Windows is MAJORLY vunerable, there was nearly 30 BILLION dollars in damage done!
Interesting spin.
Also, it has gained something of a reputation as a secure system, at least compared to IIS, and this may be undeserved in installations where best security practices are not followed (most of them). This is perhaps a wakeup call that it's important to patch, only set up services that are necessary, and use a firewall and intrustion detection system, but most people know that already.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."
The only way they've reduced the _proportion_ of attacks on their servers is by losing market share. The total number of attacks against Windows servers is still increasing, so it's a little premature to give them any compliments.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal -- Jello Biafra
They claim a database of 280,000 attacks since 1995. They claim there were at least 18,000 attacks in August alone, or 6.5% of the total of 1% of their sample. Also, these numbers are meaningless without knowing the total population of each type of server. Oy!
I think it's time to break the statistics down application by application at that point. Show me some Apache vs. IIS numbers or MySQL vs. SQL Server numbers or exclude third party applications altogether please. For the record, I run both Windows and Linux for clients and servers and am pretty neutral in the whole OS wars thing. Each has their merits and uses, both need regular security maintenance and I am pretty much happy with both for very different reasons. I'm not a Linux zealot, but I know bad numbers when I smell them. And then...
So MS is shoring up third party applications then? They even go on to cite Sobig and MSBlast as the reasons for the high MS numbers. This is shifting over to a very FUD-like smell now.US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Anonymous guy who can't remember his login
That would be WilliamGates.
Sure, we all know that Linux is on more Web Servers than MS.
But consider this: Do people attack the server because it's running Linux, or because it's hosting the SCO website?
I think the CONTENT drives far more hacks than the OS it's on...
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
I seem to recall some 500,000 servers being compromised by a worm last month. Do they only count attacks by people?
I think a much more meaningful statistic would be how many fully patched Windows and Linux servers are successfully hacked. With Windows, you are always vulnerable, because the rate at which vulnerabilities are discovered far surpasses the rate at which patches are issued. With OSS, OTOH, a patch is usually issued a few hours or days after the vulnerability is discovered. Hence, the amount of time a successful Linux exploit is usuable is usually much lower than an exploit for Windows.
I would guess that most Linux machines that get hacked are due to unpatched/deliberately insecure configurations - like using a dictionary word for a root password.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Brought to us by our friends at mi2g. I'd take this with a grain of salt.
Number (or percentage) of successful attacks against servers maintained by professionals, sorted by operating system.
Of course there are a lot of non-secure Linux systems on the net. Lots of amateurs use Linux. After all, it's free! Notice how much the statistics in the article changed when they leveled the playing field and looked only at servers in one industry: government? Keeping to one industry caused them to look at systems maintained by sysadmins with much more equal skill levels.
From the article: Microsoft Windows servers belonging to governments, however, were the most attacked (51.4 per cent) followed by Linux (14.3 per cent) in August.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
65% of successful attacks came against SCO, which MUST be running Linux since they developed it.
Folks who have traditionally been Microsoft users, who have recently installed Linux on an old machine at home or maybe as dual-boot, who have little to no real experience or training with Unix-like systems or with particular open source servers, are going into to the business IT environment and installing Linux-based systems on the hype.
Sure they can get Apache webserver serving pages, they can get Tomcat doing "something", and they can certainly run XMMS quite well on their workstation, but they really have no clue how to properly use these technologies in a production environment.
They see switching to Linux-based systems as being a simple fix.
They aren't willing to extensively review their configuration or product documentation. They aren't willing to put in the significant amount of time that is in fact required to become experts with the technologies.
Yes, they certainly do get a kick out of telling their friends that they have "Linux boxes running their shop", but security suffers due to their naive incompetence.
These techs should be fired.
Open source development may be a "we'll get that feature done when we feel like it" affair, but deploying Linux-based systems in a production environment must not be.
If anything, effectively and securely deploying Linux-based solutions requires more training and knowledge than does deploying Microsoft.
Let's stop pretending otherwise.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Any information that comes out of mi2g is suspect. They have been heavily criticized by Rob Rosenburger of Vmyths, a computer security hysteria site.
If over 12000 Servers were linux and were being sucessfully cracked compared to 4000 of windows boxes. Now representing this as 67% is to skew the results. What we dont actually know is how many were in the data set ?
Did they sample 20000 Servers ? 20,000 servers or 200,000 servers ?
Linux 67 Breached Linux Servers 12892 73.59%
Windows 23 Breached Windows Servers 4626 26.41%
90Total Cracked ? 17518
Well the percentile is only 90% of the figures. Which servers were in the missing 10%.
Did the survey compare windows to linux boxes alike e.g.
1 Linux Server examined to 1 windows box. for 20,000 boxes ?
I dont see any figures here for accuracy or qualification of the figures.
What I do see is a suggestion that Linux is very popular. If this is the case and we suggest that 80% of the net is unix to 20% microsoft. then 67% of 80% of the network being interupted seems very unusuall and rather high as a figure.
So I keep coming back to wondering where the figures have actually originated and been compiled.
Im fairly sure Microsoft can be secure, but unlike Unix it tends towards insecurity. Ive often compared running Microsoft boxes to herding sheep. You spend all your time keeping them alive and free of viruses. Unix on the other hand is the sheep dog, consistent , loyal and dependent.
They can bandy these figures all they like but unless they can flatten the survey and show a clear scope of investigation and comparison then I dont think we should be worrying about the quote.
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.
I must confess that the first linux server that I set up was hacked for the very reason mentioned: my ambition exceeded my knowledge.
Imagine my chagrin when I got email from a couple of companies stating that an attack had been launched on their servers from my system! Let me tell you, I fixed that right quick!
I find it interesting to note the low number of Unix boxes that the article mentions as attack victims. Based on the experience of my own personal ignorance, I figure Unix operators are probobly more savvy, ergo tighter security and fewer successful attacks. Personally, I haven't been able to figure out how to configure a Unix server in a usable manner (having tried FreeBSD and failed miserably). I find Linux easier to work with, which, perhaps, invites disaster when someone with limited savvy (such as I, once upon a time) decides to roll out a server and expose it to the wild west Internet.
[For those who wonder, the incident involved someone setting up an IRC server app on my system, which then attempted to install itself, apparantly, on other systems that were better-secured than my own. Thereafter, I put everything behind a linux firewall that was locked down tighter than a nun's dainty underthings. I hope this humble and frank admission of ignorance will learn y'all to lock those ports down TIGHT!]
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Vmyths appears to summarise the anti-mi2g camps position. Searches for mi2g on NTK and The Register, (when its search engine is working) for mi2g are as enlightening as they are amusing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/28233.html
They suck.
I would say there is an important difference between server hacks and viri in that respect. Most people making a virus specifically target windows, while most people hacking a server don't target an OS, but an organization, therefore it is relevant that there are more Linux servers, while the number of MS boxes is not relavent in cases involving virus. The attack focus is different.
This statement clearly states that less than 2 percent of the BSD servers on the net were attacked. Yet that is not what the numbers show. The numbers state that less than 2 percent of the attacks were against BSD servers. That is a very different thing indeed.
As such, there are a number of pieces of information that are needed to make this article useful:
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Netcraf September 2003 survey says otherwise...
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Per the initial write-up: "...all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux..." (my emphasis)
The key word here is 'verifiable'. It is much easier to detect and validate that someone has hacked a Linux box, than a Windows box. We don't know the following that would lead more credence to any claims:
1. What is the ratio of M$ to Linux boxes that were attacked that we don't know about? (undetected and still infected - I would argue this number is much larger on the M$ side)
2. How were the percentages arrived at? If there are more Linux servers on the network than Windows servers, then we can not quantify 'percentage of total servers' and have it mean anything useful in terms of total numbers of attacks because, statistically, Linux attacks will outnumber Windows attacks given a standard distribution; since most script kiddie tools run on, and target Winblows machines, a 21% of total attacks on a few windows machines is more significant than a 67% of total attacks on a much larger group of Linux machines.
Social science numbers have no intrinsic value, except to the uninformed.
"Figures never lie, but liers tend to figure." - Longfellow
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The Globe and Mail is the older and generally more respected newspaper. The National Post is a recent upstart. It is generally considered much more right-wing and a bit downscale.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
What folks really want to know is how does OS choice affect security for their organization. This study doesn't give them that information.
1) You need to get a sense of reporting bias.
2) you need to make sure you are comparing
servers in similar situations
(i.e. Linux servers at major, unpopular
corporations vs. Windows servers at major,
unpopular corporations)--and make sure they
are equally interesting targets.
I can believe that ISP's that service
certain neighborhoods are especially vulnerable
to attack--and that ISP's don't use Windows.
3) I would compare how setting affects this. I
could believe for example that Linux/BSD
are much more secure in the hands of
a professional and Linux is less secure in the
hands of a novice.
Come on, where do they get these figures? In August alone:
From NetworkWoldFusion
The Blaster worm - also known as MSBlast or LoveSAN - has spread rapidly since it was first noticed on Monday. It has infected an estimated 188,000 systems running Microsoft operating systems, including Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 and NT, that are unpatched for the so-called RPC vulnerability discovered last month, according to a security firm tracking the worm.
They didn't count them. Why? Most of them aren't servers, right? Well how did they differentiate Linux servers then? I bet they didn't -- did they check and only record RH Advanced Server and disregard all the RH Workstation. I doubt it. This is pure FUD by a place that has trouble with math.
In the book Repelling the Wily Hacker there is an amusing story about a Unix box getting rooted, and the script kiddie starts typing DOS commands.
Just to give an example that it does not take a real hacker to get into a Linux box as such. Other factors are also quite important.
Another thing that's not clear here is what is classified as a successful breach? Does that mean defacing a web page? Does that mean getting full access to the box? I've had a web page on my server get defaced because I forgot to upgrade PHP, but I didn't really care that much. On the other hand getting my box rooted by somebody is a serious problem.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well.
I post often about how Linux is no less insecure than Windows or any other OS. And constantly, I get bashed, downmodded, told that there are more Linux servers but are less hacked, etc.
And yet here is a study that shows otherwise. Now look at all those people try to dismiss it. Try to dance around it, making excuses, and so on. If this study had shown that Windows was the most breached, people would take it at face value and we'd have the requisite hundreds of "I told you so" posts, heresay, anecdotes from idiots who don't patch their servers, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to say, I told you so. All operating systems are as secure as their admins. Microsoft has millions of dollars and some of the top programmers in the world. They're damn secure. So is Linux. So are all the others, reasonably speaking. Linux is not the end-all of secure systems, and this just makes people who act that way look like idiots (especially when they're making ridiculous excuses to try to diffuse the study).
"Sufferin' succotash."
I think anyone reading ./ is a qualified expert in this department.
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
"The data comes from the London-based mi2g Intelligence Unit, which has been collecting data on overt digital attacks since 1995 and verifying them. Its database has tracked more than 280,000 overt digital attacks and 7,900 hacker groups."
So, its like, here we have an organisation that manage to track 7900 hacker gruops?
Riighht...
That should make echelon pretty jelauos. The numbers are spewed out with no explanation whyatsoever wich makes someone as paranoid as me very suspicious. I have a hard time imaging a hacker giving numbers that easily. Smart hackers tend to shut their mouth. We only see the stupid scriptkiddies who brags on irc. I hope they havent used IRC logs as a measurement even if it wouldnt surprise me at all.
"Microsoft Windows servers belonging to governments, however, were the most attacked (51.4 per cent) followed by Linux (14.3 per cent) in August."
Why arent the numbers for this accounted for? I interpret this sentence as if Windows Servers was infact more attacked at govts. Why isnt those numbers revealed? Was there like, 100 000 Windows attacks or 10? The difference is also quite amusing between the number of successfully attacked systems. It seems like the govts is better at securing their servers than comercial online shops are.
And again Riiighht...
"The economic damage from the attacks, in lost productivity and recovery costs, fell below average in August, to $707-million (U.S.)."
"The overall economic damage in August from overt and covert attacks as well as viruses and worms stood at an all-time high of $28.2-billion"
If im right here server attacks from hackers cost 707 million. Attacks from viruses/worms (Windows since how many has even seen a linux worm let alone experienced one?) cost about 27 billion.
In that retrospect its kind of annoying if mi29 pats Microsoft on the shoulder since they account for almost all lost productivity and loss of income. Since the Microsoft attacks costs so much more or are so much more expensive i find it very hard to come to no other conclusion than that the linux attacks are no more than supercicial breaches easy recovered from. Either that or the numbers just dont add up.
As i side note, yes i think linux need better security but to gain real security on cheap intel/amd there need to be some better memory protection and more belts and straps. If one security mesurement fails there should always be a backup system to catch what slips through the first line of defense. This is my strong belief drawn from my view that no system can be whitout faults. We should try and mimik the way airplanes are built and used.
HTTP/1.1 400
I'm curious, was Slashdot afraid to put "Linux Most Breached Server?" in the headline? The stats were about most breached. The point wasn't who was most attacked. I guess that one word needed to be changed to soften the blow...
"Sufferin' succotash."
SE Linux is integrated into 2.6 and a patch to 2.4. It GREATLY improves the security of a Linux box. If someone gets root (or some other uid shell) through a buffer overflow they can no longer take over the whole system. Odds are they cannot do anything. How is this possible? By running every process in a security context carefully restricted to least priviledge through a system of mandatory access controls. If you want to see how effective this is for yourself please telnet to:
selinux.copilotconsulting.com
user: root
pass: root