Slashdot Mirror
Security FUD On Linux
bobmatnyc writes "InfoWorld reports that Microsoft is planning an "security assault on Linux" by hyping results of a commissioned study pointing to the number of security holes in Linux vs. Windows, the number of days it takes to fill the patches, and by raising questions as to the reliability of code submitted throught the OS process. I suppose if they focus very narrowly on one measurement of security, completely ignore script-level vulnerabilities, default settings vulnerabilities (such as root access for all users), and the demographics of the user population, as well as a zillion other things I'm not clever enough to think of off the top of my head, they may have a point. "
I've been waiting years for Security FUD to run on Linux. I'm glad someone was able to port this over from Windows.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
As somebody pointed out to me not too long ago, as long as MS talks about security holes that are remotely exploitable, I don't think Linux has anything to worry about.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
A good rule of thumb in competition is to only start wars you know you can win. Something is not clicking here...
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
How many Windows Security Threats have made me work over 24 hours straight? 1 every 2 two months in 2003
Guess which OS I like to support?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
What frustrates me about these is that people actually BELIEVE them. Though given the recent security blunders by Microsoft (such as that little problem called 'Blaster') people might finally realise that this stuff is a load of BS.. or very very twisted fiction.
And I just wish that the comments & replies of key figures in the Open Source community made the headlines in the same way as these 'reports' do.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win
Mohandas Gandhi
Physicists get Hadrons!
>> InfoWorld reports that Microsoft is planning
>> an "security assault on Linux"
Microsoft prefers marketing...
Linux prefers a solid product...
Perhaps Microsoft should spend some more money on fixing their own products instead of trying to bring down others, it's turned in to a politcal compaign for them.
It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating:
First, they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Linux isn't perfect. By design, the implementation, or the way people admin their machines.
There is an understanding that MS is also not perfect. People expect security holes, and bugs and crashes.
I think it is good that this might result in a nice list of where linux has gone wrong in the past, and what hurdles to overcome in the future.
If the competition wants to make you the "Build a better OS HOWTO" I think they should be as free as anyone to add to the LDP.
Given that Microsoft got caught lying to a Federal judge (during the antitrust case) why is anyone suprised that they'll lie to their customers?
Isn't that a given?
Anybody looking to a vendor to provide accurate data about its products or the products of its competitors deserves the crap they get.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Actually no. Those users are part of the Administrators [re: root] group. Check yer users settings sometime :-)
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
such as root access for all users
On Windows, even the Administrator account (which is the level that lots of people log in to) is not really root access. The Local System account is comparable to root. The Administrator has control over all user-controllable parts of the OS but there are parts that are not user-controllable.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
This is such good news for me, and here I was, ready to throw windows out of my life and become a linux guru, thanks microsoft for showing me what a mistake that would be!!!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
That's no help at all if arbitrary users can elevate themselves to administrator priveleges. NT-XP is fundamentally broken. Maybe the next version of Windows will solve this design problem, but I doubt it.
This hole exists and actually has working exploits.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Period ending June '03, Micrsoft spent 1.336 Billion in R&D. Five million isn't even half of one percent of research spending. Serious security? Doubtful.
That's why Microsoft is so committed to solving security through obscurity -- they believe that keeping the flaws secret will keep crackers from developing exploits.
The "study" will also no doubt find that Microsoft fixes their bugs much faster than open source programmers since the Windows bug and downloadable fix are often announced on the same day.
MS can win a PR battle, because they have an endless amount of cash to pursue the cause.
On the other hand, OS can win the desktop domination war by creating better systems that are less vulnerable in real world situations if we focus on grass roots marketing.
Hey Guys, For the first time after a decade on the net I was scare to connect to the net.. Do you know why? I just moved to a new house and I had to transfer my SBC/yahoo DSL account to there. They gave me 10 days for complete the moving so, I am without dsl connection on my house... I had to use dial-up (I forgot was slow it was) but the only machine I had available with modem was a station with Windows 2K professional that my wife use... To be sincere, I was too lazy to install a modem on my linux desktop that I use was a firewall for my home too. So, I looked to the Windows Desktop connected by dial-up and I start thinking... Jesus, I am connected to the internet using Windows and without a firewall or anti-virus (I don't like any anti-virus...I don't think I need one till I see my M$ windows connected to the net)!!!! As soon as I connected I got that SPAM using the the message service! Windows is a hell! Microsoft is a hell!
If they like many of us see Linux as the biggest credible threat out there, they might resort to fighting dirty. Linux does have the potential to shift the paradigm of the whole IT industry in the same way that Microsoft themselves did through the 80s and 90s. Sun et al are already feeling the heat in the server market. I'm certain that Bill and co are getting twitchy about how things are developing.
We all know Microsoft is pretty cold and calculated when it comes to competitors. If Linux is next in the firing line, the open source community needs to be ready for this battle and the wars that will follow...
First the Chinese get the Source Code for Windows then they decide to back Linux?
Sounds more like our government had better look at who is more secure.
Today, I was talking to a friend of mine who bought his first computer about 4 years ago. He wanted to back up every thing on his computer, so he dragged all the icons from the desktop over to his CD burning program. When I tried to explain to him that the only thing he burned onto the CD was a dozen shortcuts, and not the actual programs/data itself, he just looked at me with this totally blank stare and had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.
The point is this: When it comes to programmer-related problems (buffer overflows, etc) Windows and Linux seem about equal. The big problem with Windows is that Microsoft's focus has been entirely on "ease of use" for people who know little or nothing about computers. That's how you sell lots of computers (and lots of copies of Windows). They created all sorts of nifty features (scripting, etc.) and turned them all on by default -- never giving a moments thought to the harmful ways that these features could be used
Windows, in the hands of a knowledgeable person, can be just as secure as Linux.
But, "right out of the box" it's a security mightmare -- a disater waiting to happen.
That should have been, "terrorist hacker in China."
More than 99.9% of all viruses in the wild will only work with Microsoft software.
Sobig, Mimail, Sircam, Lovebug, Nimda, Code Red the list goes on.
Microsoft will say that this is because most computers on the Internet run Windows, but a look at netcraft.com shows that more than 2 thirds of web servers run Apache, and only about 20% run IIS.
Windows has more than 90% of desktops, but not more than 99.9%. I run Linux on my desktop, and don't even bother to run the Sophos antivirus client I have a license for, no point, no one could infect my desktop with any of the 80,000+ viruses sophos detects.
If Microsoft are going to try this one then they will have to tell lies and pay for carefully run studies.
I bet they will not compare Windows and Linux viruses!!
This will prompt "virus writers" to further cloak their sources, making it even harder to bust anyone, while the MS platform remains unsecure.
Well, I don't know about that, but I think it will change the makeup of the virus-writing community. If Microsoft had done this 10 years ago, it might have made a small effect. I have gotten the impression that, back then, virus writers mainly did it for exposure and bragging rights. If you could no longer brag about it because it increased the odds that someone you bragged to would turn you in for $$$, it might have dissuaded a fair number of virus writers.
However now, a substantial number of virus/trojan/worm writers seem to write cyber-parasites to get zombie machines to play core wars-style turf games on the Internet (such as DDOSing the people they don't like) or to spam for money.
The motivation is no longer the same and these bounties are likely to have much less of an effect. It's too little, way too late.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
MS can release "news" as a press release, and the newspapers eat it up. The public believes it. The hardware manufacturers "sell" this crap because they sell MS to consumers for Microsoft at a profit. Wall Street helps the process. Analysts hype the latest "features" for the latest vapor product from MS, due in 2012.
MS sells themselves to the public by issuing press releases. They can say whatever they want, as long as they make a claim that they're doing something. There is no accountability. No one holds them responsible. Consumers keep throwing money at MS. Occasionally, someone points a finger, but MS then releases more press releases about vaporware due in 200x.
Politicians do the same thing, "We need to spend more money on _____. We've been spending money on _____ for ___ years, and we've not solved the problem. We are renewing our effort."
In other words, "We're going to light some money on fire, pose for a few photos with the underprivileged, and then waste a lot of money on cigars, dinner, and entertainment."
Microsoft has excellent people playing the press release game. Everyone sells Microsoft products for MS.
How many people have actually met a Microsoft employee? Yet 1/2 of the planet owns or uses something with Microsoft products in it.
-- No sig for you!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No. It makes it better for YOU. 0.5% of people who use a computer. How is that BETTER?
Nuts. It makes it better for everyone. Look at it this way: would you rather take a drug that has been tested by hundereds or thousands of independent testing labs around the world, who published their results for all to see, or one that was produced by some big company who assured you that theirs was safe and effective, but wouldn't tell anyone what was in it?
You don't have to be an independent testing lab to benefit from the existence of independent testing labs. Likewise, you don't have to be a coder to benefit from open source software.
-- MarkusQ
Is that will everyone can audit every line of code of open source OS's, nobody (apart from microsoft) can audit windows... Who can say that windows don't have backdoors to FBI or worse?
From the time that they acknowledge a bug until it's patched is VERY FAST.
The problem is that they won't acknowledge a bug until they already have a fix for it. Often bugs are known about by the world for months, and MS says there's no such bug. When they do acknowlege it, then yeah, there's a fix out within hours or a day or two at most.
So, apples and oranges. If Linux takes 4 days to patch a bug as soon as it's known, and Windows takes 4 months to acknowlege a bug's existance, then 2 days to patch, which is better?
The Blaster worm defect 5 year+ in age. Now in most cases you have 2 years for a virus writer to find and use bug or 4 months for a data thief. Linux is staying inside the safe space note I would like it better but nothing is perfect. But the blaster flaw was know for sure in 1995. I found it then on a data thiefs howto site(know you enemy). The reason for not patch was user want network conections out the box. Ok why in hell did it allow the port through dial up connections and why in hell could you not disable it on network cards.
That is right you have to install a firewall third party. Here is microsofts bigest problem no good default firewall. Most linux faults can be blocked out by the default firewall. The next verion will target programs if everything goes to plan what will make linux even harder to attack.
Note the one in windows XP is a poor firewall a free one shiped with the OS would have been better.
The other defence of linux is in most cases we do not have one program to do just that task. Ie mult ftp servers, different versions of appache and removal modules, mult email server.
Basicly linux defence is patch or swap out of operation. Swap out of operation stuff has patchs that are slower because there is no need to rush the patch. Ie if everyone has swap out as directed there will be no problem. Basicly a swap out directive better be called a full patch at the directive or microsoft has stuffed up it report.
Unless we're missing something... Who's to say that Microsft haven't been doing a little unpublished research, looking for buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities that they're soon going to demonstrate?
[...]
If they like many of us see Linux as the biggest credible threat out there, they might resort to fighting dirty.
The thing is, most OSS developers I know (myself included) welcome public review and full disclosure. If I get advance notice of a security problem, I look at that as a luxury, and have no problem with finding out along with the public. Once problems are pointed out, it's usually easy enough to fix them quickly. Having Microsoft auditing open source code for free would actually be quite beneficial.
The reason full disclosure is so important is that without it, these holes still exist, circulating among the black-hats. Unlike Microsoft who'd rather sweep problems under the rug. Disclosing problems isn't "playing dirty"; it's step one in getting them fixed.
So, even if Linux was the most bug-ridden operating system with massive security holes, it wouldn't even matter. It certainly doesn't excuse one of the largest and most powerful software companies on the planet, i.e., one that can marshal a massive amount of resources and money to produce respectable software, from the ridiculous numbers of security issues and bugs that arise in almost every product they release.
Politicians love tu quoque, by the way.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Windows is awesome, Microsoft are nice people. Linux are the OS for the Communists and written by a bunch of hackers.
Now Bill Gates, pay up.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Pointing out that a some other, "free", product has flaws is hardly a good defense for flaws in an expensive one.
A customer who takes this advice and removes Linux simply makes any Linux problems irrelevant - it doesn't make the past, present, and future Windows security problems magically go away.
I started out as a Dos/Windows user from day 1 (actually I really started out as a TI 99a user - but that is another story). I have also managed and used all of the windows operating systems from Win 3.1 up to the present Win XP. When I didn't know any better, I used to think the DOS command line was the best thing since sliced bread, and batch files were my scripting nirvana.
Then I started using *nix. I loaded Linux for the first time in 1992, and have been using it ever since. I was also a Unix system administrator during my career, and was using Sun systems in college before that. I learned the tool building paradigm of Unix, and absorbed awk, sed, perl, python, lisp, java, and a host of tools unheard of in the Microsoft world. Things that I spent hours accomplishing with Windows and DOS, I was accomplishing in minutes with Linux.
From my vantage point, it is plain to see that the Microsoft products are not up to the task of being a general purpose workstation/server operating system. When compared to industrial strength Unix and Linux distributions, it is a toy - and should be advertised as such.
I think the key distinction we need to understand is the ability of an end user to ameliorate security problems and other bugs when they manifest themselves. In *nix, usually the source code is available for modification, or a work around can be accomplished quickly with a scripting language because of the clear text interprocess communication mechanisms available. On the Microsoft side of the house, we are clearly dependent upon the good will and scheduling of Microsoft to get the fix implemented - and there is not much we can do to alter the outcome. So, the choices are independent ability to fix things, as needed - or Big Brother Knows Best; I know what I prefer.
Given the above, Microsoft is never the 'right tool for the job', unless your job is a toy application that is expected to be obsolete within a few years. The simple measure of this is to look at all the DOS applications that are currently being used by end users, versus *nix applications (albeit in GNU form) - *nix wins hands down. Don't believe I haven't tried using various DOS and Windows tools - but they just don't have the overall flexibility and usefulness that can be plentifully found under *nix.
What really boggles me about this whole issue is how people can be screwed by MS a thousand times over (non backwards compatible file formats, blecherous incomplete implementation of java, a malformed central configuration repository that causes complete system meltdowns when corrupted - that end users are not shown how to backup out of the box, etc...the list goes on and on), and yet come back smiling for more! What is really amusing (sad, really) is how I see some people rationalize that they were the ones at fault: "It was silly of me to build my spreadsheets in MS Works 1.4 back in '85 - what was I thinking! I should have copied all those entries across to Excell back in '95". To me this is a red flag that I am being taken for a ride. I woke up. I hope you do too.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
People favour the things they favour. That should hardly be surprising.
The interesting question is why, given its relative user base, is Linux favoured so strongly by so many?
I hear very little subjective promotion of Microsoft (except where subjective == for profit), especially given its large user base (I hear a lot of complaints from their users, though). Isn't the relative intensity of voluntary, subjective lauding of software an assessment as objective as any at the end of the day?
I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.
Are you stating these as times since you did an install until you got compromised?
Becuase if you have a Windows 98 default install and give it an unfirewalled connection to the Internet with a real IP address you've got 5 maybe 10 minutes before you're compromised.
I'm assuming you meant ftp server and not client, as for your box to get 0wn3d through a client requires your participation to some level.
The Nachi virus *does* root you. That's what's amazing about Windows. Many Linux vulnerabilities allow some types of access, but full remote root vulns in Linux itself are rare. Windows just doesn't seem as infected becuase most virus writers aren't out to wreck your machine and delete your data. Nachi, or any of the other ones, could have easily deleted your files, or read them and mailed the goods to the bad guys.
I'd stake money that one day in the next couple of years some malicious virus writer will strike, and all Windows users will realize that every virus since Melissa has had full control of their computers. Unfortunately, until it happens, nobody will think that virus' are more than minor nuissances.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD