Slashdot Mirror
Reflecting on Linux Security in 2003
LogError writes "Here's a look at some interesting happenings with Linux security in 2003 with comments by Bob Toxen (one of the 162 recognized developers of Berkeley UNIX and author of "Real World Linux Security") and Marcel Gagne (President of Salmar Consulting, Inc. and author of "Linux System Administration - A User's Guide" and "Moving to Linux")."
It's better than Microsofts! Sorry, I do not mean to troll..
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
Forcing people to pay for security updates would be so incredibly stupid that it would guarantee the insecurity of even more Internet-connected machines than right now. I think that security updates for ANY OS or application, irregardless of the status of its source code, should be free and available for everyone.
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Oops .. s/Linux( community)+/Microsoft/ ..
There, now accords with reality, as documented in various trial records.
A kernel that wrote itself. Cool!
Hal Flynn has apparently never read the GNU GPL.
Any patch on a GPLed software has to be under the GPL itself, and thus charging for it will be quite pointless: once someone has payed for it, he can redistribute it freely, including for free.
And since the patcher has to distribute the patch source, the patch can readily be included into the original source code...
So Hal Flynn's idea is not only discutable rearding the responsibility of the vendor, it is also legally incompatible with the free software licensing scheme.
Try again, Hal.
Oh boy! An article which takes 1 authors clearly subjective feelings, piles on the anecdotes, and pronounces evidentiary conclusions!
From reading this, it would appear that Gagne is pretty much what happens when you give a linux zealot some airtime. I'll comment on just a few things i got a kick out of:
At some point, I expect users to upgrade to newer releases or take some responsibility for patching their own systems. What's a reasonable period of time? I'd say 34 to 36 months. At some point, any reasonable users should understand that the best way to ensure continued support is to upgrade to something more recent."
but then we have
The beauty of the open source model is that an opportunity exists for creating fixes for old releases. Not so for the users of Windows 95 or 98 who have no source code to go back to when the next critical flaw is uncovered.
So which is it ? Do we expect people to upgrade after 36 months, or do we take any opportunity to mention that we think Microsoft sucks (of which everyone in the audience is perfectly aware)
"Frankly, it seems incredible that this is even open to debate.
There's that objective analysis shining through. Definitely not the words of someone pushing a beleif as opposed to an argument :)
One need only read the newspapers, listen to the radio, watch television or work in an office where Windows is widely used
Which papers would those be ? The ones that manage to not mention that FSF, Debian, and Gentoo all had their Root file distribution servers OWNED in the same year ?
has nothing to do with Microsoft's market penetration.
riiiiiiiight. Let me tell you what. if windows update gets owned, you will hear about it in the papers, and on the news, etc. And it wont be because of the magnitude of the issue - because it happend to the FSF, Debian, _and_ Gentoo _first_. When something goes wrong with microsoft software, it hits the whole internet. It's a market share issue.
It doesn't hurt that at its very core, Linux is designed with security in mind.
What do the original UNIX authors have to say about designing UNIX from the ground up with security in mind ? A history of linux will show a few things, I think.
No need here for launching a security initiative after years of neglect."
Or, said another way - "not too much new ground to cover making a freeware clone of 25 years of operating system research!"
Despite the fact that I do not run a Microsoft computer in this office,
why am i listening to your opinion of MS software again ?
costs in terms of data loss, damage, and lost productivity in the last three years alone runs into the billions of dollars. This is documented fact
Really ? which documents ? Where are the documents that talk about how much money business MAKE by leveraging software - Microsoft software. If, overall, MS software is hurting business financially, why dont they go back to notebook paper ? Why not use linux ?
This article is pretty much a non-article.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
In my experience with both Operating Systems, I have often found that a lot of the insecurity lies with the user. Again, this is just my observations and not hard fact, but I have found that the average Linux user is more aware and technologically savvy than the average Windows user. Linux has traditionally served as a geek playground whereas Windows seeps into the marketplace on new-from-the-store PCs and thus is usually the first operating system most people learn on. My mother, who would "never try an operating system like 'Linus'" is just as oblivious to the necessity of a good firewall on her machine. In fact, before I intervened, she nor any of her friends even had one. Worse, they were under the opinion that you can not retrieve email without Outlook, and that Internet Explorer was the internet. That might sound preposterous to you or I, but I have found this to be true of many casual PC owners. So, beyond security problems inherent in code are problems inherent in the user as well.
;) Hmmm... that seems vaguely familiar. :)
Linux is also very community-minded (hence, the "Open Source Community.") We vehemently defend Linux and thus have greater stock in its success. Now, I do not subscribe to the idea of thousands of users pouring over the source code and fixing security holes, but I will assert that the small number of users who actually contribute to the community do a fine job of it, and are extremely dedicated. What Open Source offers is the ability to pour over the code, even if most of us don't take advantage of this. M$ developers are usually money-driven and thus focus more on how fast they can get a product on the shelves than how rock-solid they can make it. Linux developers seem to take more pride in their product as, since many of them donate their work, all they really have is that pride to guard. You won't find the Linux community only putting out one large, obscure patch a month and then declaring "AHA! We have less patches than M$."
If I had to put my money down on which one was more secure, my money would go on Linux.
-dexterpexter
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
It is however within the authors rights to release a non-GPL version of the software that doesn't have the same bug or exploit.
It's an unpleasant truth, but Bill Gates was right when he suggested that perfect bug-free, unexploitable code is impossible. There are going to be vulnerabilities, no matter how much of an effort you make to keep them out of code.
Security has to be achieved through firewalling, shutting off unnecessary services, keeping software up to date with the latest security-related patches, and some common sense on the part of the user. In my experience, a lot of Linux users are every bit as ignorant as their Windows counterparts when it comes to security. I know plenty of people who don't know what daemons are running on their computers, who don't keep their software updated, and who don't follow basic common-sense security procedures. Unfortunately, there's the perception among a lot of people that just running Linux makes them secure. They feel they don't need to bother with things such as firewalls, because they're invincible. Even among their Windows counterparts, firewalls are considered a necessary tool for security.
There's a basic competence needed to run Linux. Unfortunately, beyond that, many users are clueless when it comes to security.
Linux doesn't lend itself to many of the problems Windows does. But that's only part of being secure.
Linux distributions shouldn't come with lots and lots of services enabled by default. We complain at Microsoft because a lot of users have IIS running on their machines and just aren't aware of it. Many Linux distributions are just as guilty as Microsoft here.
If we want to make Linux more secure, we need to fix the two biggest vulnerabilities - the default settings of many Linux distributions and the user.
do you have any substantiation of this ?
You may have heard something about software engineering, but if not, i'll tell you. The later you discover a bug, the more expensive it is.
Lets take some examples.
I think you get the idea. If a bug makes it out into the public, it will cost microsoft at least $100,000, at a minimum.
So, do you think bugs make it into the code because the emphasis is on cranking out software quickly, without caring about the quality ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
My God you are a useless troll.
You say:
a step by step procedure for stealing the Microsoft fonts and installing them on Linux....
Then you link to http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
Which has a copy of the microsoft licesne the fonts were obtained under:
Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices.....
In my experience with both Operating Systems, I have often found that a lot of the insecurity lies with the user. Again, this is just my observations and not hard fact, but I have found that the average Linux user is more aware and technologically savvy than the average Windows user.
This is a simple result of the law of large numbers. If we assume "technological savvy" is normally distributed within the population then very small samples can have on average very high "savviness" rates. Once the sample size grows the average "savviness" goes down and approaches the mean (which in today's world is still quite low) asymptotically.
Linux has traditionally served as a geek playground whereas Windows seeps into the marketplace on new-from-the-store PCs and thus is usually the first operating system most people learn on.
And herein lies the problem of making blanket statements: yes, most people who are not experienced with computers do run Windows at home. Of course they're going to get infected with something! They lack the experience to mitigate risks and to know what they should never do. DOS didn't have one tenth of the complexity of the latest versions of Windows and stupid DOS users still got viruses all the time.
Linux is also very community-minded (hence, the "Open Source Community.") We vehemently defend Linux and thus have greater stock in its success.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of CS majors deriding SCO on /. won't help Linux kernel development all that much or attribute to any possible success.
M$ developers are usually money-driven and thus focus more on how fast they can get a product on the shelves than how rock-solid they can make it. Linux developers seem to take more pride in their product as, since many of them donate their work, all they really have is that pride to guard.
You are Eric S. Raymond and I claim my free-as-in-beer Tux merchandise.
You won't find the Linux community only putting out one large, obscure patch a month and then declaring "AHA! We have less patches than M$." ;) Hmmm... that seems vaguely familiar. :)
Naturally, since you won't find the "Linux community" putting out any patches at all, ever. They're always put out by individuals or by companies/devteams that simply wish to produce the best possible product for their users.
If I had to put my money down on which one was more secure, my money would go on Linux.
The best way to keep you computer system secure is to make sure it's not run by idiots. How do you accomplish this? Make sure it's as complicated as possible[1]. For a long time Unix had this going for it, which means that Unix administrators had to have a lot experience coupled with knowledge and consequently would usually run a secure network.
By comparison, since "any idiot can run a MS network", then idiots were hired to run MS networks, with predictable results.
[1] The same principle actually works on a broader scale. Intrinsically hard topics tend to gather a more knowledgeable crowd while idiots flock to the easy topics like politics, religion and such. Which usually means that the level of discussion over political topics is far lower than that, say, for hard sciences.
I am not sure if you are attempting to argue with me or not, but it sounds like you are actually agreeing/clarifying points that I actually meant, but are better said by you.
I am sure that the average Linux user was at some point technologically unsavvy, but you usually find that individuals who migrate from Windows to Linux are those users with at least some grasp on what they are doing. However, that does not change the end result, that being that the average Linux user probably has some idea of how to "secure" their computer. Now, as Linux desktops become more popular, we will find that these numbers will change. However, I would feel a lot more confident running an unpatched Open Source product than an unpatched Microsoft one, although doing either is tempting fate.
I did take the time to point out that contributors to the Linux community are far fewer than those who use Linux. However, it still holds true that the few people who do contribute, do an excellent job at it. Anyone disagree with this? I, for one, am impressed with the thankless work that they do.
And the "any idiot can run a MS network" fits perfectly in with my point that the insecurity, often times, lies in the user/administrator. *Laughs* Do Microsoft certifications even mean anything anymore? Or are there big wigs out there who use terms like "paradigm" and phrases like "thinking outside the box" that still get impressed with shiny stones and MS Certs?
As I said, same point (with an argumentative tone), better said by you.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
Now don't break your arm patting yourselves on the back. That article hasn't really stated ANYTHING new or anything of even mild interest. Yeah Steve Ballmer said windows was as secure as linux, did anyone actually BELIEVE the guy? Maybe the non-techies, but this article is really only going to be read by /.ers which is the epitome of geeky techs. What point did this article actually have other than calling the kettle black?
Why? There is an unvoiced feeling among software managers that they had better get the product on the shelves by Christmas or their careers will suffer. In the extreme, they become yes-men, telling their bosses only what is pleasing, with no regard for the truth. Too many yes-men and the company crashes because top management is not aware of problems until it is too late to fix them.
The solution? Software product managers must have the intelligence to recognize when their product needs more time, and the courage to tell their superiors the bad news. To encourage that behavior, top management needs to be tolerant of bad news, and not limit the careers of their subordinates who bring it.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
I haven't been r00t3d.
:)
Too bad Debain can't say the same thing
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm a Debain user myself, and I think the wayt they handled the thing was very brave and honest.
- no sig.
There most certainly is logic. I know because I've been in that situation. While I'm not a CEO and I'm not in the software industry, I have released a product with "bugs" which we'll try to work around or fix eventually. So I think I understand the desire to ship things before they're "ready".
It comes down to two simple words: market share. Every day, people are making decisions and buying products that serve their needs. If they're not buying your product, then they're buying your competitor's product. Moreover, if you don't have a relatively recent product, you start to lose mindshare. It's very possible to release a product so late that even though it's the best, no one cares anymore: they all bought a competitor's product and are locked in to it. So in a very real sense, every day you delay the release date is costing you money.
Thus, you need to balance the desire to ship a product with no bugs with the desire to have a product in the market now. And the way to choose when to do that is to balance the monetary costs and try to release the product when the cost is minimized.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
- XFree86 will run on a lot of stuff. However, why do you need a GUI? Last I checked, you were developing a better CLI...
- SSH?
- No Microsoft proprietary Kerberos support. There's Kerberos, just not MS Kerberos.
- I'm pretty sure it's there, and if not, someone can whip it up quickly.
- Hmm... Samba, anyone?
- I thought most of them WERE crypto...
- The "free will" contributors do a better job and go through more of a review process than your patches, thank you very much
- That's just pure BS
- No. Initial cost is much less than Windows, and TCO would have to be less.
Terry Pratchett (in his many and various Discworld novels) overed this quite clearly.
The Patrician privatised everything.
I mean everything
All the usual goings on in a big city (eg crime) were arranged much like insurance is today (in our world).
Unfortunately (you knew I was going to say that).... The Fire Department got into the insurance business (have to raise money somehow) - specifically FIRE insurance.
This ended up with them having such pleasant conversations (amongst themselves) while walking down the main business streets.
My My. Such lovely Old Buildings. Wonderful WoodWork. Would be such a shame if one of them should catch fire. Would prolly burn most of the city down. Oh Dear! What a disgrace that would be.
Basically, in our world, most people recognise that such a situation (ie charging to fix something that you should not have broken in the first place) would very rapidly lead to (essentially) rampant wholesale uncontrolled extortion.
If a company were to charge you for security and other bug fixes, they would then have a strong financial incentive to produce shoddy bug ridden software and frequent updates.
Product quality would decrease, and administration overhead would increase.
It's the same issue with charging for software subscriptions. What is their incentive to produce another updated version with new features? After all they've already got your money.
A Software Subscription (with ALL updates FREE for 5 YEARS !!!!) does nothing more than make software updates come out once every 5 years.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Baloney. IIS comes on every Windows CD-ROM and is used by lots of Microsoft apps. And there's plenty of bugs that cross boundaries thanks to Microsoft's blurring the distinction between OS and application...like that WebDAV bug in ntdll.dll that was exploitable via IIS [microsoft.com].
Where to begin?
1. Just because it comes on the CD-Rom does not make it any less of an optional component. If I started ranking on security flaws on some of the obscure, minor, optional programs what come with the varios Linux distros, you would just change song and say "hey, nobody uses that" or "its just optional, nobody is forcing them to use it". Just a tip- pick one story, and stay with it. It makes you look less hypocritical.
2. Used by other apps- MS cannot be held responsible for non-MS apps causing holes in the security. To claim otherwise is lunacy, and throws the whole issue of personal responsibility out the windows. I am responsible for what *I* do, but to hold me responsible for what people I work with do? Thats absurd.
3. You mentioning the WebDAV exploit demonstrates your lack of knowledge in how Windows uses DLLs. I try to always get my expert opinions from experts, so please stop spewing nonsense about things you dont really understand. Just because you are on a mailing list doesnt make you knowledgeable, or an expert.
Also, your former gripe regarding no kernel exploits, of which there were some, is just as valid if you want to talk about Windows. So why dont YOU stop talking about apples and oranges? You cant have it both ways.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
is that the beauty of unemployment?
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
The problem with this approach is that most compromises are not detected immediately. Most are found days, weeks or months after the actual breakin. Meanwhile, the compromised files are faithfully backed up. This means that restoring from backup will most likely place the same compromised files in place.
You could set up your backup script to md5sum or a similar mechanism to check files, but it still requires "situational awareness" to know what the differences are and why these diffs occurred. Most diffs are innocuous, caused by upgrading packages, changing passwords, etc. An intrusion detection system (e.g. Samhain, Integrit, Tripwire, AIDE) does similar functions on the live files, and is a must-have security tool, and must be properly employed (e.g. database on "safe" media).
Security? Hell, if it were easy, anybody could do it.
--Storm
The breaches that do real damage are ones where private info is stolen, like all the custmers' credit card numbers.
Tar your way out of that.
What you say is true, but the person you are responding to also has a point. Products of all kinds (not just software) are often shipped with known defects (and many unknown ones) for a variety of reasons. Ed Yourdon in one of his books (either "Deathmarh" or Rise and Resurection of the American Programmer, I don't remember which) advocates that there's such a thing as "good enough" software. This is software that isn't perfect, but is cheaper and faster to market than a competitors that strives for perfection. This is one way that the US has dominated the software market for the last 20+ years and fought off the off-shore invasions that Yourdon predicted in his book "The decline and fall of the american programmer".
Frankly, "good enough" software is still the norm for most things, but the bar for "good enough" has risen quite substantially in the public network world due to the exponensial increases in penetration attempts (and successes).
Closed source commerical companies aren't the only ones to do this either. Look at most Open Source software, which pretty much ships something as soon as it can compile and then slowly morphs into a solid product. Frankly, you're never going to find all the bugs in your software in the lab. It has to be exposed to the billions of permutations of end-user systems to find most of the problems. A good example was the 2.4 kernel, which was still going through major "beta" changes up until about 2.4.14, despite supposedly being "stable".
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here