Slashdot Mirror
UNIX Security: Don't Believe the Truth?
OSNews has an interesting editorial about security on UNIX-like systems. "One of the biggest reasons for many people to switch to a UNIX desktop, away from Windows, is security. It is fairly common knowledge that UNIX-like systems are more secure than Windows. Whether this is true or not will not be up for debate in this short editorial; I will simply assume UNIX-like systems are more secure, for the sake of argument. However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little"
So if an OS is to make a daily backup of user's home directory (or My Documents) automatically and locks it away (until emergency) from user access, it might just win the heart of users.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
If "Johnny's first day at school" is more important that system critical resources, perhaps you should have hard copies (CD, DVD, tape, etc.) of this media.
You're right, you should make backups. You have a love-affair-dependency on your hard drive. Everyday you need it to retain the ones and zeros it holds that forms your data. One day, your personal hard drive isn't going to be there for you. That's why you should back up regardless of how secure you feel. Most "normal home users" don't have redundant RAID arrays running. Furthermore, it isn't "secure period," it's touted to be one of the most secure operating systems. Wait, weren't we talking about Unix?
I don't think anyone but Mac users claim that. And anyone that claims that for any processing device is lying to you. There are Linux Viruses out there, just use your favorite search engine.
Oh good, we're back on Unix here (they're not exactly the same, you know). I disagree, both sides (user and system) are more secure in the case of Unix or Linux for that matter.
While this might be true, I think you should take into account the frequency of said viruses. When's the last time a massive virus attack has taken down entire networks of Unix machines? So you talked about Unix security without quoting a single authoritative source on the issue. And to finish off this article, you rely on a one-hit wonder brit pop band to prove your thesis. May Slashdot have mercy on your soul, Thomas. Endure the onslaught.
My work here is dung.
This story was ripped on for being lame on osnews earlier this week. Now the slashdotters get to make fun of it too.
and a triumph for the home user. If you had to choose between having a virus that both destroys your personal files and compromises your system or a virus that only destroys your personal files, which would you pick? He's making light of a very significant thing for most home users--a full wipe and reinstall of the operating system and applications. That's a day's work for your typical user, more if you have a bunch of programs you need to go hunting for.
But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? I can answer that question for you: the pictures of little Johnny's first day of school mean a whole lot more to a user than the system files that keep the system running.
What's the value of Johnny's first day of school photos if you can't boot the damned computer? Again, the author makes light of the value of the system to the home user. Just because John Q. Public cares more about his cup holder than his engine block doesn't mean he won't care when the cylinder head cracks.
Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure? So why should they backup? Isn't Linux immune to viruses and what not? Isn't that what the Linux world has been telling them?
Actually, no. I have yet to speak with a single techie who says that you don't need to back up important files under any circumstances. In fact, viruses are almost always a "secondary" reason for backing up files; the primary driving reason behind backing up your files has traditionally been that of hardware failure.
The crux of his entire argument rests on the supposition that, to the home user, the system simply doesn't matter. In a most cosmetic sense, this is true; home users don't give a damn about kernels and drivers. The instant something goes wrong with that system, however, it's a nightmare for that archetypical home user (who, remember, doesn't know and doesn't care how the thing works). When everything works, they can open and print Johnny's files just fine, but what the heck are you supposed to do when the omgwtf32.dll pops up an error message when you try to open Johnny's picture?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Even if you read the RTFA, which says that rather than computer exploding windows-style, nix hackage will just wreck your home, which is supposedly all that matters to a home user. Still wrong. Think multiple users for a start. But that's totally wrong when it amounts to time lost. If windows gets fucked as it often does i've seen many a user stick in their oem disk, reinstall completely, and then go through painfully reinstalling everything they had before. Say my /home was wrecked? All I'd need to do is fdisk the drive and create a new user? Besides, as in unix only exectuable files can be a source of infection, rather than screwed up images and office files, I can safely copy away anything I want. It's dumb. Sorry OSnews.
This is the false sense of security I am talking about. UNIX might be more secure than Windows, but that only goes for the system itself. The actual content that matters to normal people is not a single bit safer on any UNIX-like system than it is on any Windows system.
This idiot is stating that because some users don't understand the UNIX security model, the UNIX security model is flawed. Apparently, as far as he's concerned, if ~ gets destroyed, the whole system may as well be destroyed. He's blathering about a "false sense of security," but I have never, anywhere, ever, heard anyone say that you don't have to back up your data if you run UNIX.
Sound and fury, understanding nothing. Typical of OSNews, but sad that Slashdot's carrying this crap.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
I think the author of the editorial makes a rather trivial point. (They could have made the point a lot stronger, pointing out that malware, spyware, adware, trojans, etc., are all able to be run from within unprivileged user-space.)
But why would a home user care about Unix-type security? I'll give you a few reasons of my own.
(a) Smaller target. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that the largest increase in security that home users get is because they're using something that 90% of the home user market isn't. This isn't a feature inherent to Unix, obviously--but I still think it's a reason to switch. "But if everyone switches, won't that get rid of the security increase?" Perhaps a little, but the only way it would completely vanish is if everyone switches to the same flavor of Unix. If we have a Unixy, more secure home computing environment, but slightly different flavors, then viruses and malware will have a more difficult time propagating in such a non-homogenous environment.
(b) Remote exploits. This, I think, is a lesser issue, but not a trivial one--there are a considerable number of remote exploits in Microsoft software, and there have been a non-trivial number of viruses and malware that spread through this vector. Unix-based systems are historically less vulnerable to such attacks, and often the remote processes that are vulnerable run under a different user than the desktop user anyway.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Are the editors even paying attention here? How can a 500-word, Grade 6 public speech-quality editorial makes it to the frontpage? Where is the quality here, folks?
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Security equals security for *your* files, and Unix can't do that, so Unix must be just as insecure as Windows. Only when you define "security" in your own, narrow way, and then never implicitly say what that definition is in your 'article'.
I wonder why he didn't bring up that Dad has pictures of Little Johnny on his first day of school Mom has all of her and dad's wedding photos. Litte Suzy has all of her papers for school on the hard drive. Little Johnny likes to look up pr0n.
Windows situation, While trying to download hotmidgetdonkeypornheaven.exe, Little Johnny accidently picks up uber.worm. Uber.worm deletes Johnny's files, suzie's files, mom's files, dad's files, system files, makes the system useless, and you go from a windows computer to a nice paperweight until you reformat. *nix situation, While trying to download hotmidgedonkeypornheaven.sh, Little Johnny accidentally picks up the uber.deletion.script. Uber-del deletes johnny's entire home directory!
Of course, Mom, Dad, and Suzie are entirely unaffected because Johnny doesn't have permission to overwrite those files.
Wonder why the asshat, er, I mean, article writer didn't bring up that snippet?
Evil Walrus >83=
Thomas Halwedra is a young'in with very little real world experience and any practical experience. They kid is in college and has a bunch of machines at home. I think he takes an extremely simplistic view of windows and unix security.
:-)
His 'OSNEWS' bio: http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=11
I was doing systems programming on UNIX BSD 4.2 Tahoe when he was born.
I am surprised that his article was even published/posted, I can't really even see his argument or what point is he trying to make. Oh that's right he's a 'managing editor' WTF?
Back to work.
There is nothing special about UNIX or linux that makes it immune from viruses.
However, in UNIX culture, there is something. The first rules of security.
First, the default installation should not act as a server operating system. The system should not respond to ANY outside requests for anything unless enabled to by the system admin.
Second, no action on the system should be performed with any more than the minimum set of privileges necessary. Everything should be done with user privileges, not system privileges, unless absolutely necessary.
The use of these basic security rules applied more or less throughout the UNIX world, and for MAC OS X as well. Windows INTENTIONALLY ignores these rules in order to "maximize the user experience", and in doing so spawned a multi-billion dollar anti-virus industry.
The guy skips lightly over the fact that it's the system that mediates interactions between the Big Bad World (a/k/a the Internet) and the user and his precious files, so that if the system is well-designed and set up properly, it will do a great deal to protect the user even from his own actions.
An analogy one might usefully make is to the highway: good system-level security is like a well-designed, well-lit highway. Sure, the user (driver) can still kill himself, but he has to behave unusually recklessly. On the other hand, poor system-level security is like a rutty, unexpectedly curving dark country road. Even reasonably careful drivers at moderate speeds can get in trouble.
The guy is focussing on the fact that in both cases the driver can get himself killed. But that isn't the whole story. One "road" (system) makes it easier for a moderately careful "driver" (user) to survive. The other puts even careful "drivers" at risk. And, of course, there's the obvious fact that no "road" (system) can possibly protect the completely reckless "driver" (user).
But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? I can answer that question for you: the pictures of little Johnny's first day of school mean a whole lot more to a user than the system files that keep the system running.
Sure poor computing practice by the user that owns the files could result in their destruction. Nothing gained versus Windows there. But in a family computer scenario, more is gained than the author admits. On Windows systems, many programs are (mis-)designed to require administrator rights even just to run them. This is not generally the case on UNIX-derived systems. As a result, accounts for family members will often be in the local admin group. So on a family computer if you give Little Johnny an account to run his software and play games, and he goes and downloads the latest malware and runs it, it can nuke your data as well as his.
Under a typical scenario under a UNIX-like system he can only destroy his homework and saved games, not your pictures of his first day of school along with them.
That's got to be a non-negligible benefit to the family user that the author completely discards.
.sig: file not found
Security issues have moved on a little since the 80's, where his point of view is from - very few security breaches today result in loss of data, because computers are really more valuable as zombies and so not many viruses really attempt to mess with much (even the most recent public example of a destructive virus on WIndows was pretty much a dud).
Another thing he does not account for is time. Time is a valuable commodity to all users, and anything that can prevent a virus or spyware from reaching further into the computer reduces the amount of time and knowledge needed to remove probelms from the system. That is at the core the value that UNIX brings to the security equation. Not absolute protection but like a teflon pan, easier cleanup when you do create a mess.
And last of all by not explicitly mentioning how much more inherantly secure UNIX systems are that start off with a base of no open ports are. Sure spyware and viruses can get in through the browser, but it's a much harder attack route than just scanning and finding a hole wide open that requires no effort on the part of the computer user to install.
In the end his rant boils down to noting that users should really back up files often - but even this message is dated, as a few years of sketchy consumer hard drives with short warranties has started to drive home this lesson in spades through failed hard drives. Forget hackers; little johhny's pictures today are in far greater peril from a simple lack of using the CD-burner.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Windows does have a fairly intricate permission system, and you can setup non-administrative users just like you can in Linux. The only difference is, lots of old software expects to be run with administrative privileges, so if you want to run those things, you need to run as admin. The main reason people use windows is for backwards compatibility, but these days you can do most of your work in windows with a non-admin account if you want.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The advantage of UNIX is it's simplicity. The common APIs found on UNIX systems haven't changed in many many years. This sounds like a weakness but from a security prespective it is a great strength. This is because the vast majority of bugs are in relatively new code. If you recall the end of NT4's life it was pretty stable (relatively speaking). That's because all new development work was on other products. Now with the introduction of XP and Sharepoint and .NET and all the other new stuff, there's a mountain of new code to find exploits in. Windows is much more sophisticated than UNIX but whether or not that's a good thing depends on what you're using it for.
In fact, you could debate this for any OS. Here's how I see the best use of each OS:
Linux - Great development platform. You can easily install it on a laptop and get most things to work like they would even though it was "designed for XP" (e.g. power management). Linux is also a great virtual private server. A VPS is a Linux instance running in a VM like User Mode Linux. You can serve Webmail, SMTP, php apps, mysql, imap, etc for your personal use for $20/mo. As car analogies go, Linux is a Ford F150 pickup.
Windows XP - Required corporate desktop. XP provides integrated security with ACLs on a wide variety of resources with all groups managed by a central authority with UIs to manage accounts. As a car XP is a like a fully loaded Mercury Montego sedan (it has all the amenities but don't expect it to be running in 5 years).
Windows Server - Good corporate application, file and print server. It has a rich highly integrated set of libraries. Required for running server side applications for XP clients such as Exchange and AD. Windows Server is also like a Mercury Montego sedan except it costs a lot more.
Solaris - Rock solid server application platform with world class support. If you don't need the sophisticated APIs provided by Windows Server then Solaris is a very good choice. Solaris is like a large Frietliner flatbed truck with GPS tracking and 24 hour roadside assistance.
Mac OS X - Home PC desktop. OSX is ideal for the casual home user who wants to create a web page from the photos on their digital camera or play their guitar with sound loops in Garage Band. Mac OS X is like a Lexus RX 330. Every respectable yuppy has one.
FreeBSD - Good HTTP server for the Internet. It's also a good alternative to Solaris as an application server platform if you're trying to save money and don't need it to scale to 16 processors. FreeBSD is like a Toyota pickup.
I am fairly sure that UNIX is more secure than Windows for a number of reasons.
1. While there is a great deal more Windows around than UNIX, UNIX is where the money is. If you want to extract large sums of money or steal swathes of identities then UNIX servers tend to be the systems hosting these backend services. So UNIX should be the target of hackers wanting to make serious money while much of the Windows activity is concentrated on hacks designed to produce the maximum public impact most of which cost because they down systems rather than extract cash from systems. The fact that almost all the money making hacks concentrate on Windows is testiment to the factthat it is difficult todo on UNIX.
2. Much of UNIX is OpenSource or available as source code, despite this there have been very few examples of ethical hacks or demos of vunerability that have been viable generated by security research companies or ethical hacking groups.
3. Stack overflow holes account for a huge chunk of the Windows vunerabilities mainly because Windows and x86 lack generic protection against these specific overflows. This is not true of UNIX particularly if it isn't running on Intel. Solaris for example has specific controls which limit the options for stack overflows as does the SPARC processor. These controls make it more difficult for hackers to generate exploits that remain viable.
4. There have been vanishingly tiny numbers of viable reported UNIX virii, none in the case of Solaris.
I have found the ultimate solution to such issues in my VMWare testing environment - snapshots. We really beat on and hose our testing machines and, to make sure we were getting an acurate test, we would always have to reimage them from a Ghost image every time we went in there. We replaced that solution with running our testing in VMWare where reverting to a previous snapshot just takes a few seconds. Not to mention that you can branch off them in a tree fashion to track and test under various changes and conditions. I really don't understand why MS can't develop a simpler version of something similar for the OS. HD space on the vast majority of user's machines is plentiful and the ability to be able to make a snapshot of your system when it is exactly the way you want it that you can go back to later quickly and easily would solve myraid problems. If you could back up that snapshot to a DVD or external HD in such a way as the hypothetical snapshot manager could restore your PC config from it in the event of a physical HD failure all the better.
Now, obviously, we would need a way to prevent a malicious program for also corrupting the backup snapshot - maybe some password that is specifically for the modifying and changing of the system snapshot.
I doubt that MS will ever be able to make an OS as secure as Unix as long as they have to provide the level of backward compatibility they do. What they could do, however, is mitigate the risk by giving us a way to get our PC back to it's pristine state without all of the trouble of app reinstalls and haphazard backups/restores. The limitation always was the hard disk space this would entail and that limitation has been blown away by modern HDs...
This isn't necessarily the fault of Windows
And that is only because the FIRST step is learning enough about the system to know that there is a problem. It's easy for most of us who spend time and read
Viruses only spread when their infection rate EXCEEDS the removal/immunization rate.
When the infection rate is lower than the removal/immunization rate, the virus dies.
With most current versions of Linux, the default security configuration means that it is very difficult to infect a machine (not impossible) and very easy to remove the infection.
Before this "InterWeb" thingie, I was cleaning boot sector viruses from DOS machines that required someone to have booted from an infected floppy.
Linux boxes CAN be infected, but the odds of it happening are very, very slim.
That starts you off on shares and setting the time/date.
Do you want to know one of the coding practices lead to this problem?
http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/
You might want to spend some time looking up Powerpoint 2003, too.
Complexity does not equal elegance. If you find yourself uttering something as foolish as "prohibitively more elegant", you've stumbled into that territory.
Indeed. It would appear that the world has moved on since you last looked at "Linux" in the 90s. POSIX 1003.1e/1003.2c access control lists: http://www.suse.de/~agruen/acl/linux-acls/online/