The World's Safest Operating System

Fun and games with statistics by erick99 · 2004-02-21 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article: "The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the study to overt digital attacks by hackers."

This is not the best way to conduct research. When I was doing research at NIH we would say of this sort of thing, "After discarding all data to the contrary, the hypothesis was proven."

While this research may show that Linux servers are over-represented in overt acts of hacking, this does not statistically make the Linux OS the least secure. Attacking a particular system simply makes it popular for attack. In order to characterize Linux, or any other OS, as the least secure, there would need to be evidence that an equal amount of other OS's were unsuccessfully attacked or the success rate was lower. Other variables that would required controls would be the hacker, level of sophistication of attack, etc. etc.

To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted. I am not saying that the conclusions of this research are incorrect, I am saying that from what I have read, they cannot come to those conclusions.

Keep Smiling!

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:Fun and games with statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree with this comment whole-heartedly. It seems like what they have proven is that hacking Linux actually requires human intervention while Windows can by hacked automatically. I guess that shows why Windows is the easiest to use :) Can anybody else envision a world where clippy offers to crack a box for you when you have "forgotten" your password?
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Frambooz · 2004-02-21 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted.
We all know the average Linux user is more likely to tamper with his setup and run non-model-user applications, like their very own webserver. They are likely to know few things about proper server security, and therefore their servers are more vulnerable.
Windows users are less likely to run a webserver, simply because they're not as eager to play with their system as Linux users. Therefore there will be less insecure Windows servers. The same goes for Mac-OS users.
What I want to know is the percentage of professionally installed and maintained servers that was actually vulnerable.

--
No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by mojowantshappy · 2004-02-21 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted. I am not saying that the conclusions of this research are incorrect, I am saying that from what I have read, they cannot come to those conclusions.
Then again, what this also means is that linux machines are the most likely to be overtly hacked into.

--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Re:Fun and games with statistics by gbjbaanb · 2004-02-21 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

So they discounted the viruses and email crap that require some user to click the attachment called 'Im a virus, click me now'.

That actually sounds like a fair attack vector to ignore in compiling these, otherwise you couldn't derive any meaningful stats - eg. if I posted my password on to my monitor, and someone hacked my workstation (by using that password), would you be able to say 'that workstation OS is inherently insecure'? If you couldn't, then you can't allow similar user stupidity to feature in these statistics.

I don't think that runnign updates fall into this 'stupid user' catageory, especially as Windows boxes are more likely not to be admin-ed by clued up admins.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

It also characterizes linux as one big O.S. instead of a kernel...for all we know it could be counting people who install distributions that leave remote shell escapes wide open.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by miu · 2004-02-21 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

While this research may show that Linux servers are over-represented in overt acts of hacking, this does not statistically make the Linux OS the least secure.
Linux is over-represented as a target of hacking because there is so much low hanging fruit out there, same reason that Windows is over-represented in the malware depart.
The study chose to not consider malware because that is really a UI and social engineering problem, this study was about attacking servers without an inside patsy and Linux came up short. It is dishonest and dangerous to ignore these sorts of results.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Mad+Marlin · 2004-02-21 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

First off, as a FreeBSD user, I must quote the venerable Nelson: "Ha, haaa!"
What I want to know is the percentage of professionally installed and maintained servers that was actually vulnerable.

Now, on a more serious note, my belief as to why Linux fared worse than your average BSD is this: Linux is often the first foray into the world of Unix for people these days, including a lot of people not particularly qualified to run a server. BSD is generally viewed as less friendly to new users (a not entirely incorrect view) and therefore sees a lot less MCSE's looking to pad their resume. Given a good administrator, there should be no real difference between a Linux and a BSD server, since most of the stuff past the kernel level is exactly the same anyway.

--
Best Slashdot comment ever
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Oriumpor · 2004-02-21 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, I wouldn't say that, there isn't enough data there for a professional security expert to determine anything worthwhile out of the study....

What were the majority of attacks? How many were exploits that took advantage of underruns? How many were due to running apache? Did they do any analysis of UML based systems which are built around the eventual breach of security?

I'm at a loss. Whether or not the Linux servers or hell even the Windows servers followed a good security model (rings, single ring, regular auditing etc.) You can secure an operating system only so far, which is why you only portfw certain ports through the firewall.. Did they attack things like NFS and portmapper which shouldn't be on the outside world anyways?

A step by step analysis of THEIR analysis is needed to understand what they did to come to these results.

IMO FUD.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by damiam · 2004-02-21 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

They discarded worms that acquire remote root without any user interaction. You can't chalk that up to user stupidity.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by timeOday · 2004-02-21 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

So they discounted the viruses and email crap that require some user to click the attachment called 'Im a virus, click me now'.
They didn't ignore JUST that. It sounds like they ignored every virus and worm that spread themselves automatically, even if due to an rpc bug or what have you.
You, know, those hundreds of default.ida and scripts/..%252f.. requests you get every day? According to these guys the cracked machines behind those requests don't exist, or at least don't count.
Nevertheless I'm going to take a closer look and see how I can secure my linux boxes better. I'm surprised linux fared so badly, because many of the services running on linux (apache, sshd, ntp) are the very same ones running on the bsd boxes which did better.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by wandernotlost · 2004-02-21 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please. Black and white it most certainly is not. While the information should make us Linux zealots sit up and pay attention, this article doesn't really say anything at all. They didn't tell us the proportions of systems tested, and they threw away automated breaches (and they might have thrown away targeted attacks accomplished through automated/worm means--they didn't give enough information to tell). Without knowing how many systems of each type were present, it's pretty meaningless to give figures based on numbers of systems breached.

For example, the results in the article could be describing a scenario where all machines on their network were breached, and each of those attacks corresponds to a different machine. So they have 13k Linux machines and 2k Windows machines. Would that tell you that Linux is less secure? Not really. It would have been slightly more meaningful to tell us what percentage of attacks on any given system succeeded and failed. It could also be the case that they keep all their important data on the Linux servers, so not many people are trying to break into the Windows boxes. We just don't know, because the article doesn't tell us anything.

Yes, Linux folks should work harder on security. No, this article doesn't really say anything in particular definitively.

P.S. I just looked at the article again, and it says they, "discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide" [emphasis mine]. So yes, from that statement, they actually just discarded all the data on Windows. I kind of doubt that they actually did that, but that's what the article tells us. I guess from that you could say that Linux hackers rely on holes that aren't widely known, whereas Windows hackers just use the same holes that everyone else is using.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Analysis+Paralysis · 2004-02-21 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The study chose to disregard "automated" attacks. A standard Windows system can be compromised within minutes of being connected to the Internet by such attacks so ignoring them means that only secured Windows systems are included. This makes the research unbalanced since it fails to apply a similar filter to Linux systems. Malware is not simply a UI/social problem - the Blaster worm and its variants needed no inside assistance.
In addition the study only covered successful attacks. How many unsuccessful ones were there? The measure of vulnerability should surely be the ratio of successful/failed attacks, not just a raw number.
Finally how were these attack figures reached? Where these based on government/company IT figures? (in which case factor in maturity of systems/staff and how much easier breaches can be discovered in Linux using free tools like Tripwire) Or packet sniffing of certain domains? (Linux is used by more domains, some of which are set up deliberately to be hacked).
The only conclusion that can be safely drawn is that Linux appears to be a more popular target for manual attack - whether by necessity (automated attacks being far harder), desire (more of a challenge) or familiarity (easier to learn the internals of a free system, especially if you lack the money/connections needed for commercial counterparts). And security is hardly ignored on Linux either - with tools like ipfilters, tcpwrappers and Bastille, admins have little excuse for running a non-secure system.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Endive4Ever · 2004-02-21 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

since most of the stuff past the kernel level is exactly the same anyway.

Not really.

Most Linux systems conceal the configuration behind layers of python scripts and shiney-gooey-croft.

Most BSD systems can be properly configured using any 'UNIX system administration' book published in the last decade, and the vi editor.

--
---
Re:Fun and games with statistics by Digital+Dharma · 2004-02-21 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

This has been the fatal flaw for any widely deployed OS, including Microsoft. What kills me is that it's okay when it's linux, but it's an inherent flaw when its Microsoft. Linux is not that hard to use anymore, so that's not an excuse. And securing Microsoft or Linux takes a skilled professional, not your secretary's son, but that's who usually ends up doing the work. I personally ran a network of 65 Windows servers for years without a single breakin. Not one. After I was laid off so the CFO's kid could take my place (he was tech support) the network went from 99.9% uptime to 94% uptime with an average of 2 breakins a month. Go figure. But hey, they supposedly saved money in the long run, eh?

--
End of Line.
Re:Fun and games with statistics by void* · 2004-02-21 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

More like "Let's discount all the stuff that rely on TOTAL DIPSHITS to execute on their own computer."

So every one of those worms required a stupid user to execute it?

Bullshit.

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/ve nc /data/w32.blaster.worm.html

"W32.Blaster.Worm is a worm that exploits the DCOM RPC vulnerability (described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026) using TCP port 135"

That is not anything near 'rely on TOTAL DIPSHITS'.

This particular worm actively broke into the machine remotely. Discounting it for a study like this is nothing but 'let's throw away data until we've proven what we want', as other posters have noted.

--

Code or be coded.

Overexaggerated by DarkHelmet · 2004-02-21 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

I tend to think that Linux machines are more vulnerable simply because there are lots of people who pretty much have the system installed, and fail to do anything in order to make sure the system is updated.

For all the servers out there, I wonder how many people actually run up2date or apt from time to time. I imagine more people run windows run windows update than any linux equivalent.

Let's face it. Linux isn't for just the uber-geek anymore. So logically, more systems are going to be hacked into when people with no security sense are managing systems.

Don't blame the operating system. Blame everyone who thinks they're a competent sysadmin, but really aren't.

Not to mention that this article doesn't weigh in percentages. There are a *LOT* more linux servers out there than there are BSD, Windows and Mac OS X servers. When one factors in percentages, Linux really isn't *that* bad.

--
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i

Re:Overexaggerated by gbjbaanb · 2004-02-21 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

isn't this the exact same argument people have been saying (on /. too) why Windows appears less secure than Linux?

Seems all those old posts were just flamebait, either that or all the Windows security patches really have made a difference.
Re:Overexaggerated by chill · 2004-02-21 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because the majority of problems with Windows stemmed from system-level vulnerabilities and problems. Linux, however, seems to suffer more from application level vulns (SQL injection, misconfigured or sloppy PHP.

In short, with Linux, most vulns are due to misconfiguration of apps and NOT an inherent flaw in the system.

Windows has, so far, had a bad track record of SYSTEM LEVEL flaws and not necessarily inherent flaws.

-Charles

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Overexaggerated by Ogerman · 2004-02-21 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's face it. Linux isn't for just the uber-geek anymore. So logically, more systems are going to be hacked into when people with no security sense are managing systems. .. Don't blame the operating system. Blame everyone who thinks they're a competent sysadmin, but really aren't.

It's true, Linux is not just for geeks anymore. But because of that, we need pre-hardened distros (including ACLs, IDS, and stack protection) and automated security updates for systems run by idiots. The ultimate answer (educating people) is unfortunately not feasible. As much as possible, security needs to be idiot-friendly on every OS.
Re:Overexaggerated by DrEldarion · 2004-02-21 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I tend to think that Windows machines are more vulnerable simply because there are lots of people who pretty much have the OS installed, and fail to do anything in order to make sure the system is updated.

For all the desktops out there, I wonder how many people actually run Windows Update from time to time.

Let's face it. Windows has never been for the uber-geek. So logically, more systems are going to be hacked into when people with no security sense are managing systems.

Don't blame the operating system. Blame everyone who thinks they're a competent sysadmin, but really aren't.

You know your argument is invalid when you can make the exact same point for the other side.
Re:Overexaggerated by Curien · 2004-02-21 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bullshit. A secured box is a secured box. If you turn off all non-essential services in Windows and do the same in Linux, keep your users with low privileges etc on both, and keep both systems up-to-date with patches, they're equally secure.

There are only three variables: how secure is the box /by default/, how easy is it to make the box secure, and how easy is it to apply updates.

--
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.

What do they mean by "Linux" anyway? by Great_Jehovah · 2004-02-21 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Different distributions vary greatly in how secure they are out of the box and in how easy it is to apply security updates once they are deployed. Also, talking about absolute numbers of breakins is completely uninformative without knowing the number of systems deployed for each.

This is not news, it's a troll by 26199 · 2004-02-21 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

To be news, they need to say what proportion of computers use each OS, and what apps were hacked. It even says third party software accounts for a lot of the Linux hacks.

Nothing to see here except some meaningless statistics. Yawn.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics... by LostCluster · 2004-02-21 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Somebody needs to take some basic statistics. The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place. If you normalize out for server market share, you'll find things are more or less even.

When it comes to servers, selecting a bad choice of a password or forgetting to properly set file permissions is still the easiest way to get hacked, and that will always be operating system independent. And, that accounts for the majority of security weaknesses. Worms and viri are a client-side issue, servers don't often get hit with those.

So, good work OSX fans. You finally found a metric by which having the fewest number of servers in actual use makes you look good...

Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics... by Cereal+Box · 2004-02-21 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place.

So how come every time there's an article/rant about how insecure Windows is and someone says the exact same thing about Windows (i.e., "Windows has more viruses/attacks because it is the most widely used desktop operating system"), it's considered nonsense or a copout by so many Slashdotters?

it makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

::puts on flame-proof suit::

Linux is made up of _many_ distributions, who hack together systems out of many disparate apps. Each is slightly different. This diversity means none can Q.A. their systems as well as a unified project like FreeBSD does. I've seen some unbelievable bugs in a very well-known Linux distro, there for no reason there than their resources are stretched too thin.

Linux is also a Unix. People who put up *BSD servers are Unix hacks. People who put up Linux servers are oftentimes ordinary people who are trying to cut costs from not going with Windows. Unix is powerful, if you don't know how to handle that power, you put your systems at real risk.

Absolute numbers do not absolute truth make by Space+cowboy · 2004-02-21 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

How many linux servers are there in the wild, how many bsd ones, and how many windows ones. I'd be tempted to guess that the geeks favourite OS is by far the most popular server OS...

In other words, it's the same story as Windows on the desktop - there are more attacks because there are more servers. Since they don't give us percentages of installed vs breached, the data is essentially useless. Rule #1: Normalise your data before comparison....

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Absolute numbers do not absolute truth make by Billly+Gates · 2004-02-21 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Out of the box BSD is more secure.

Thats what I love about open and FreeBSD.

All the file permissions are set to maximize security while most Linux distros are setup to maximize usability.

Remember guys we are talking about 2 different unixes. We can make Linux just as secure.

Its just that BSD is more minimalist by default and super secure before its given the go ahead to declare the distribution stable. Linux by default has more services running. The ports tend to install the most secure options when installing things like apache.

What this means is that Linux distro's and users need to make things more minimal and secure by default. Many admins are too lazy or incompetant to properly lock down a Linux box. Unix is hard and a pain to setup which is part of the problem.

I think having more linux servers is part but NOT THE WHOLE reason for this.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Linux is the most widely cracked because... by drcagn · 2004-02-21 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

The system admins usually don't know what they're doing, and the system gets broken into--it has nothing to do with the system itself. The admins should know how to configure the system - instead of leaving the defaults on. The defaults for other systems are most probably simply safer than the defaults in Linux.

--
Scorta futuere amo!

Re:easy way to fix linux by LostCluster · 2004-02-21 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nope. This isn't going to fix all of the hacks this report is talking about. Simply pick a root password of "password". up2date won't scream about that... but you're sure to be hacked rather quickly.

Stupidity runs on any OS...

let me just be the first to say by ashot · 2004-02-21 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

they forgot a very important piece of information: the percentage of total servers accounted for by these systems.

armed with this statistic and the age old mathematical operation of *division* one could make these results meaningful.

in other news, a new study finds that red heads are much less likely to commit violent crimes. Data for left-handed people is also encouraging.

--
-ashot

Terribly, blatantly flawed study by UVABlows · 2004-02-21 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide.

"When we ignore most of the break-ins that windows had, it had less than linux!"

followed by BSD and Mac OS X with 555 breaches

This completely ignores the proportion of these OS's that got hacked. If there are only 556 of them deployed, then this is a terrible break-in rate. Obviously there are more than 556, but there are fewer BSD servers than linux servers.

--

<high-level position here>
<name of stupid small company here>

Automatic Update by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-02-21 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mac OS X has a dumb little icon that leaps and jumps and bounces and begs for attention any time an update is ready. It's impossible to ignore. When the update applies itself and wants a reboot, your only options are "shutdown" and "restart." There's no "cancel" option.

While I'll admit that I find these behaviors pretty annoying, you can bet that Linux would enjoy a somewhat better security record if it were that hard to forget updates. It's a shame more Linuxes don't ship with at least the option of turning this on for desktop and small server folks.

At SCO, we offer increased security by running our website with Linux and only connecting the SCO machines to McDonald's cash registers and machines too old and slow to run root toolkits.

What about normalized numbers? by starseeker · 2004-02-21 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Absolute numbers are fine, but what about normalizing it for the total number of BSD, Linux, and Windows servers in use in this study? That's the more meaningful number. Then, what constitutes a successful attack?

Also, a useful study would look at how machines are maintained, password policies, etc.

Now before I come off sounding like a Linux apologist, it is quite possible there are some serious weaknesses that need to be addressed. If so, I hope they give us full info on the attacks so we can fix the problems. But these numbers as they stand don't tell us a darn thing.

If a dedicated admin configures Selinux and heavy duty firewalls, and puts Klingon password policies in place, I'd personally still be confident to match that system against anything out there. Default Redhat installs, on the other hand, are something else again. So again we need more info. It's all in how things are set up and maintained. The question actually being asked here - which OS is strongest, all other things being equal - is a really really tough one to answer. There are many other issues that must be addressed first.

So, as far as any useful information is concerned, this article doesn't appear to have any. What if the Linux machines simply had the best intrusion detection in place? (I'm not saying they did, but it's a fair question.) Need More Information!

--
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org

Wrong conclusion by ljavelin · 2004-02-21 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

mi2g analysed 17.074 successful digital attacks against servers and networks. It states: "With Linux accounting for 13,654 breaches, Windows for 2,005 breaches followed by BSD and Mac OS X with 555 breaches worldwide in January 2004."

They say how many attacks they analyzed, but they didn't mention the pool of hosts that these attacks were taken from.

Were there 1000000 linux hosts, 200 Windows hosts, and 6 Mac OS hosts? If so, that would radically change the conclusion that is implied.

Also, it's interesting to note that they did NOT count automated attacks by viruses, etc.

I'm sure there are interesting conclusions in their study of attacks, but given the lack of data, this study doesn't provide enough data to conclude that one OS is safer than other.

All of these studies miss the point by leerpm · 2004-02-21 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

We should not be concentrating on which operating is more secure than another. This just promotes the myth that people can 'choose' the most secure operating system and then they are secure. No operating is secure, if you do not keep it up to date and patched.

Everytime I see an article like this, I wonder how many users and administrators will get the false impression that if they just switch to another platform they will have done their job.

Security is a process. It is not all about the technology, and it requires educating users and managers to be effective.

Re:What if Windows were found most vulnerable? by kfg · 2004-02-21 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm guessing the hypocrite in you would have reared it's ugly head.

And this is a good example of discarding all the data, coming to any conclusion you wish, and then putting the onus on others to debunk your unsupported premise, which, as it happens, has no logical bearing on the argument you are attacking.

A very popular methodolgy, but not a valid one.

For purposes of bias I will point out my posting history will show that I use Windows 98, Mac System 7, Mac OS8 and various flavors of Linux at the moment, but have a very strong preference for Linux for explicitly stated reasons, some of which relate directly to the deleted data in this study, some of which do not. You'll find that my position is at least unbiased enough that I have been accused of being both an MS lackey and a Linux zealot, although I don't recall that I've ever been accused of being a Mac head. I have never so much as sat at a BSD terminal or an OSX box, although I would have no particular objection to doing so, it would be fun, and I am inclined to believe that BSD is more secure than the majority of Linux distros at the moment.

If you wish to debunk this you will have to do your own homework in finding evidence to the contrary.

Ad hominem strawman arguments will be promptly and cheerfully ignored.

KFG

Linux != single OS by IntergalacticWalrus · 2004-02-21 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Great, yet another brain-damaged research that considers Linux an OS, and talks as if all Linux distributions were identical in terms of out-of-the-box security and ease of applying security updates. Hell, if we ever asked those morons what Linux distro they used to compute their Linux results, I bet they would say "uh... Linux 9.0 ?"

Conclusion by pasv · 2004-02-21 06:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

You are as safe as you make your server/system to be. If you don't patch you will get hacked and will not be safe. Same goes with windows, linux, Anything. Unless you have you're own OS that doesn't have patches :P. Can't stress how stupid it is NOT to put up a firewall blocking ports you really dont need open. Anything out of the box and kept that evil "default" setting Is bound to get h4x0r'd (hehe)

Why there's more overt... by sterno · 2004-02-21 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know why there's more overt hacking of Linux boxes than BSD boxes. Because there are far less BSD boxes out there to be hacked.

You know why there's far more Linux boxes that are being overtly hacked than windows? Because if you are a hacker, what the hell are you going to do with a Windows box? It's just not as interesting or powerful to remotely control a windows box.

I'm not a hacker, but if I was one, I would not waste my time on trying to 0wn windows boxes. I'd go after Linux boxes. Not because they are easier to breach, but because they are more fun to play with when you do.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:What if Windows were found most vulnerable? by jusdisgi · 2004-02-21 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Uh...I haven't read all this other guy's posts. But they don't change the fact that his point here is incontrovertibly correct. Throwing out the most popular method for breaching security is a completely unacceptable way to conduct research that hopes to conclude relative security. That's pretty damn basic.

I mean, do you seriously disagree? You think this study actually shows that Linux is less secure than Windows? Even after you realize that they are ignoring SQL-slammer, Blaster, MyDoom, Nimda, Code Red...............and on and on?

This is one of the most bone-headed studies I think I've ever seen. Anybody duped by this has absolutely no concept of either computer security or basic logic.

--
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.

Overt vs Covert by cgenman · 2004-02-21 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't forget, they're also only counting Overt attacks, I.E. Verified ones... ones that leave a trace. It could very well be that all of those windows or OSX boxes were at some point Owned, but that the attack was so successful as to not leave a trace. It also requires "modification to any of its publicly visible components whilst executing...data attacks... [or] command and control attacks."

They also don't list their methodology, which I find disturbing. Out of 17k successful, caught, non-automatic hacks, x were against these systems. However, they don't say where those 17k come from, and don't put it in the perspective of the percentage of those systems in use. If you go to their homepage, they list something called a SIPS (Security Intelligence Products and Systems) System. This data comes from "Personal Relationships at CEO, CFO, CIO, CISO level within the banking, insurance, and reinsurance industry... monitoring hacker bulletin boards... and anonymous communication channels." That's a pretty unscientific pool to be pulling data from. Essentially, you're talking about hacks that were either reported by friends in high places, friends in low places, or bragged about by hackers on publicly accessible bbses.

So if you want to take the survey methodology seriously, then the survey proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux has more non-automated attacks involving changing publicly accessible interfaces that were caught and reported by friends to mi2g.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Overt vs Covert by GlassHeart · 2004-02-21 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't forget, they're also only counting Overt attacks, I.E. Verified ones... ones that leave a trace. It could very well be that all of those windows or OSX boxes were at some point Owned, but that the attack was so successful as to not leave a trace.
Exactly how would you discover an attack that was so successful as to not leave a trace? By definition such an attack cannot or has not yet been discovered or traced. Leaving them out is both inevitable and fair, because there are attacks against Linux that are similarly undiscovered.
So if you want to take the survey methodology seriously, then the survey proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux has more non-automated attacks involving changing publicly accessible interfaces that were caught and reported by friends to mi2g.
I understand that anytime somebody publishes a Top N List the urge to compete externally is great, but why not ignore the others and simply use this as a data point to improve oneself?

Re:What if Windows were found most vulnerable? by jusdisgi · 2004-02-21 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure...we've got evidence. You can even (hopefully) find it in your own memory of the day when the whole Internet had major slowdowns and large service outages when SQL-slammer came out.

Or perhaps you just want to take a look at any number of statistics that compare breaches and don't ignore all worms. I'm not going to go link-hunting for you this second, but if you seriously look for any real studies on this subject and make sure they are taking all attacks into consideration, the numbers are tremendously different.

Seriously...just think about it for a second. Have you ever seen someone perform an attack on a Windows box that would be considered for this study? I've seen several hundred Windows breaches now (I've worked in computer repair shops, and now an ISP, for some time) and so far I think every last one of them involved some sort of worm, virus, scripted exploit or trojan. If you leave all this out, what do your numbers mean?

What a dumbass way to conduct a study.

--
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.

Re:How the tables have turned by sloanster · 2004-02-21 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oops, yet another armchair critic shows his credulity by swallowing a sensational headline and jumping to a conclusion.

Linux was never more or less secure than Microsoft. It's "security" was based on it's obscurity.

While that may be the typical joe sixpack understanding of the matter, it's completely wrong. The fact is, unix was a multiuser, networked OS decades ago, and many of the baby steps that microsoft is now beginning to take represent steps towards the type of sophistication unix has enjoyed since the early 80s. Linux, as a modern unixlike OS, inherited a rather sophisticated security model which is in stark contrast to the microsoft culture of "personal computer", where things like networking, security, multiple users etc were afterthoughts.

As to the so-called surver, do yourself a favor and see if you can actually find out the data behind this mileading headline - and I must caution you that you are most likley in for a rude awakening if you expect to have your beliefs bolstered.

Time for honesty and modesty from all camps by pcause · 2004-02-21 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is time to stop the religuous falme wars about "my OS is more secure than your OS".

We all know Windows has bugs, becuase people revel in revealing Microsoft's weaknesses. Hackers love to attack Windows because it is ubiquitous and so it is also the most attacked.

What this report points out, with all its flaws, is the the Linux system has problems too. Linux supporters have turned a blind eye to this and have loudly trumpted Linux as secure, while Windows is not. This simply wasn't true, but made Linux supporters feel goos about themselves. And even if it is a bit better, that isn't the point.

There will be bugs in Linux and Windows and other OS'es as long as new development continues. Further, as long as humans adminster the boxes, admins will do silly things and create vulnerabilities.

One nit on this... by Leomania · 2004-02-21 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

...not that this means you don't have to patch your box. But all major distros these days make that really painless. Or at least a lot less painful than Windows.

Just one bit that I'd say this is not quite on the mark in this closing statement: Windows makes it easy to patch a machine for the consumer, one box at a time; they make it easy for corporate customers with tools that can push updates onto boxes (although the required reboots are an issue unto themselves). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd venture a guess that the issue is that you don't have these tools because they cost money that isn't easy to justify for the number of Windows servers you have.

The major problem as I see is is exactly what another poster stated -- that vulnerabilities may exist for months before a patch becomes available from Microsoft, and we may not be informed of them in a timely manner. The sheer number of ways that a Windows machine may be vulnerable for variable periods of time seems to me to be orders of magnitude greater than any Open Source package or the Linux kernel itself.

The ease of patching vs. the costs of doing so is a very valid reason (among many, obviously) for choosing one operating system over another. But to me it's far more important to know when a vulnerability exists and when a patch will be available. Windows loses in this regard, hands down.

Disclaimer: IANASBIPTBOOS

- Leo

--
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.

The point the article makes, however, is... by metroid+composite · 2004-02-21 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Company executive chairman DK Matai said: "The swift adoption of Linux last year within the online government and non-government server community, coupled with inadequate training and knowledge on how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third party applications, has contributed to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers. Migration to Open Source can be fool's gold without adequate training and understanding of the impact that third party applications have on overall safety and security."

Perhaps we should be focusing more on tech support and help files?

Divergent usage patterns by ewg · 2004-02-21 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The usage patterns and target market/audience for these operating systems are very different.

There are huge variations in security between

a Linux box set up by a novice student
a Solaris system participating in a cluster serving a major consumer website
a Mac OS X Server machine running stock network services for a graphic design firm

I'd like to hear more about how they accounted for these differences before I make up my mind.

--
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg

Linux = Good, Difficult by severoon · 2004-02-21 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like how the very first post discounts the point of this article right off by saying, sure, maybe linux got attacked successfully a lot, but what about all the other attacks that would've succeeded on Windows?

Come on, people. The fact is, the linux boxes got attacked successfully. That's a Bad Thing, regardless of what happened to Windows. It's an embarrassing thing for us linux people. Here's the real rub...

I've read studies over several years saying that linux boxes are nearly as secure as FreeBSD installations if the administrator sets up the environment properly . The results of the slashdotted study here is the result of the RTFM culture...hard to operate and administer, very little respect for the user in the design of the OS as a whole. I mean "respect" in the sense of "let's make this trivially easy to use because it's possible and respect the user's time" rather than "let's respect the user's intellect by reasoning they'll figure out how to work this thing no matter how ridiculously complicated we make it."

This study ought to convince all the people out there that don't worry about linux being too hard to use...it's affecting everyone, not just newbies. Not just dummies. Even admins can't set up a secure box. We have to keep working on usability folks. Fact is linux is more potentially secure than Windows--but not in practice because no one can figure out how to lock it down.

sev

--
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.

Linux Security by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-02-21 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whereas I have strong doubts about the validity of this study, I also have strong doubts about the security of GNU/Linux. It may build on UNIX principles that have been tested through time, and Linus certainly emphasises code quality, but the system as a whole is pretty new and therefore untested, and not all contributors can reasonably be expected to be aware of all possible security issues. Also, the C library is full of unsafe functions (fgets, scanf, ...), and the privilige system is quite coarse, often requiring that processes have powers that far exceed what they need to have (e.g. to install a program in the /usr/local filesystem, virtually anyone runs it with root priviliges - which also allows the process to overwrite files elsewhere in the system.

A lot of vulnerabilities are found in programs that are part of typical GNU/Linux installations. Although patches are typically made available swiftly, it's still the admins' responsibility to apply them. A system is only as secure as you keep it, and with all the wannabees running Linux c0z 1tz 1337, I don't have very high expectations. Also, keep in mind that Linux has been a small target, which makes it less popular with crackers, and that attacks against it don't affect J. Windows Luser's system, so the chances that you'll here about them are significantly reduced.

I run Debian GNU/Linux myself and I am completely in love with it, because it provides a system that Just Works and that I can understand the workings of. Debian puts a lot of effort in quality and security, however, I won't make any claims about how secure it is until I have trustworthy data about it.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Stop your whining by Sargerion · 2004-02-21 13:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every time somebody comes out with a statistic negative toward windows, the less secure in their reasoning ability among this community always start with the "hurrahs" and "score one for linux!" But whenever anyone tries to tell you you're just maybe wrong, and that, perhaps, linux is not as secure as you think it is, then you get all bitchy and cry and make dumb excuses. Go ahead and mod me into the toliet, but before you do please consider all sides of the arguement for once, jeeze. (not nessesarily saying that anyone is right or wrong on either side in this particular incident, but i hear a lot of flamebait come from a lot of people every time something like this comes up)

Slashdot Mirror

The World's Safest Operating System

53 of 1,014 comments (clear)