Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An Open Letter from Darl McBride

Posted by timothy on from the hi-darl dept.

canfirman writes "Well, it seems Darl is changing tactics as he's now published an open letter proclaiming the benefits of UNIX over any other operating system. However, most of his letter involves comparing SCO Unix to Linux from not only a business acceptance point of view, but from a technical point of view, too. Darl throws in a bunch of stats in there, too: 'In a study conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.' I'd love for somebody who has more technical knowledge than me to look at his points and see if what he says is true or not -- assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true."

2 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. I can believe of the stats here... by beh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can believe part of his claims in that more Linux systems get hacked, compared to commercial Unices. Though I don't think this is a general problem with security on Linux, but with the fact that most home installations of Unix based systems will be on Linux boxes - and therefore in the hands of people with less security expertise than large companies have at their disposal.

    Also, companies have dedicated sysadmins or even IT security people which will (hopefully) constantly check for new vulnerabilities and immediately patch their systems.

    Private "Home" Unix installations that aren't Linux based will in comparison be more likely to be in the hands of the more knowledgable folks, and hence also in the hands of people that will likely be more security aware than the average home Windows/Mac/Linux user.

    How many private users with their linux box on broadband seriously do that (except for those that hold IT security / admin type positions)?

    I'm a developer - and I'm not in the habit of daily (or even weekly) patching of systems. I'm occasionally checking the system and I do react (i.e. patch) when I hear about some (widely publicised) security hole... ...but outside of that most security fixes will probably come in when it's time to update the system as a whole...

    Another factor in "less" security of systems in people's homes, is that most people just stay ignorant of the situation, because they think "my box doesn't contain anything important that would make it worth hacking"; but they're often with that ignoring the danger that someone might just break into their computer just to use the computer in further attacks on more "rewarding" targets.

    1. Re:I can believe of the stats here... by Darth+Daver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "After all, I'd rather have my system owned by a script kiddie who's trying to shut down the internet than someone going after my identity and personal information. "

          I'd rather not have my system "owned". The Windows user attitude of, "I don't care if someone breaks into my system because it contains nothing important, and I already rebuild it every few months" is not encouraging.

          What do you think the statistical likelihood of an overt attack is compared to an automated worm? Those weasels at mi2g who came up with this "study" of dubious merit, are simply looking for some way to get a dig in on Linux. Would you rather be on an OS that gets 52% of .1% of all attacks or one that gets 99% of 99.9% of all attacks?

          Getting into a Linux box should require some overt effort. Breaking Windows boxes automatically using worms has been all too easy, as proven by numerous, catastrophic examples such as Code Red, Nimda, Sasser, Slammer, Loveletter, Melissa, etc. Please refresh my memory of all the high-profile, impactful, overt Linux attacks.