Slashdot Mirror
Army Dumps NT as Web Server, Moves to Mac
kootch writes "This sounded too funny to believe, but I think it's true. The US Army, after being the victim of a script baby and having their web pages vandalized, has moved their site from an NT box to a Mac box running WebStar as their server software. Don't believe me? Go here!"
(Disclaimer: Apple folks, I have a moral obligation to tweak macs. I grew up with an Apple IIgs.)
Ah, yes. There's nothing like a brick wall to prevent someone from breaking the lock.
MacOS actually gets some bonuses from its, uh, quaintly anachronistic operating system tendancies. (This is not a flame. I think it's cute to tell an application how much memory it gets. See disclaimer. Tweak. Tweak.) For example, the fact that the entire OS is really built to communicate over Appletalk instead of TCP/IP means there's absolutely *nothing* open by default for abuse on the general Internet.
Those who remember these kind of things will note that *the* definitive, original WinNuke was a bug in the TCP handling of an "Out Of Band" packet sent to port 139 on a Windows box. Open door. Boom.
As much as I love Linux, there are more open ports in your standard issue distribution than you're likely to find in an average brothel. Unix in general is hooked into TCP/IP addiction on a practically native level.
The speed on the mac might not be great. The stability probably won't be perfect, but who knows. With much less embedded functionality, there's Just Less To Break.
"We here at the US Army know that the most secure computer is the one that isn't plugged in. We use the next best thing."
Yours Truly,
Dan "Must Never Post When He's This Tired" Kaminsky
DoxPara "Will Have No Memory Of This Post" Research
http://haveasenseofhumor.www.doxpara.com
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
the article says:
yes, the macOS has no 'root' or shell-type access, and, by itself, is arguably one of the most secure platforms available, if only for the same reason that is is one of the most virus-immune - very few hackers, crackers, or virus writers use macs (despite all the movies like 'hackers' and 'the net')
and, by that same token, any web server just serving up http and ftp is fairly secure. adding on all the other services, and opening up ports to who-knows-what is asking for trouble. simpler is better. and a mac as a webserver is a very simple solution.
since when has the w3c been in the business of security surveys? oh well.. they're right on a few accounts, but may not be totally up to speed on the software they're talking about. the mailing lists are/have been alive with reports and fixes for security holes in open transport, os8, webstar, and all the various plugins that come along with it.
if i were choosing the most secure server for the mac, however, would have gone with webten, an apache-based port by tenon, over webstar (if one were to go with a commercial package). it's fast, reliable, and simple - no fluff. the latest issue of webstar folds in all kinds of services that are unnecessary, and have proven to be security risks in the past. my sites are running on webstar 3, but that's because of how easy it is to add new domains and administer/monitor.
the press-release tells us the mac 'does not allow remote logins'. well, if you open it up via appleshare or install timbuktu it does. even if you don't, and you stick entirely to the webstar package, you get lasso (database), a pop/smtp mail server, proxy server, ftp server, and remote admin tools by default.
i expect the army has disabled lasso - as it has been shown to be a gaping hole in previous, standalone releases - and probably use a dedicated mail server, proxy, etc., but the main webstar server cannot be administered without either a separate admin tool (which can be run locally or remotely via tcp/ip) or web-based admin, whose security is, in my experience, pretty easy to get around.
all that aside, the mac makes an excellent web server. pare down the software to the essentials, give it plenty of RAM and a steady power supply, and it should be happy and stay that way for a good while.
as for apple's PR picking this up, i think they would prefer it if the army had chosen osX server with apache, since os8.x is not really a server product.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
I'm usually very calm and collected in this sort of situation, but I just can't hold it back.
OPEN YOUR SMURFING MINDS!!!!!!
All this "haha, web server on a Mac" crap is really getting to me. This place is so Linux-bigoted that it simply amazes me. You don't bother to find any facts or think about the situation at all. If you did, you would realize that Macs are the most secure mainstream web server available for this sort of task. Sure, they may not perform nearly as well as Apache et al, but how are you going to hack a box that has no facilities, no conception, of remote administration or control?
Sure it'll be slow, but good luck breaking in without actually sitting down in front of the thing.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
without ever having to worry about someone getting root.
Yeah, you don't have to worry about someone getting root, because once they're on the box, they *are* root. They can delete the system folder, install software, anything. I bet there's not sandbox for CGI either - one buffer overrun and you can trash the operating system.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Keep in mind that we're talking about a government web site. That means no ads. Hence, there's not going to be nearly so much dynamic content. With static web pages, the server doesn't need to nearly as much work. I remember back in 1995 when www.dartmouth.edu came to life on a Mac, and stayed that way for a year or two.
/.ed. Then the network isn't the issue--it's saturated with incoming requests, so forget about outgoing data. The server then has request after request queueing up. So how large can that queue get before problems show up? Will the software gracefully drop connections, or will the OS crash when some number of active connections is exceeded? Will the web server run out of memory and crash?
/. right now.
Now the problems you're likely to see are when a server gets
It looks like www.army.mil is learning about
Now that the G4 means that apple is a munitions company, it makes sense for the army to support them.
So much for people having a sense of humor. ;)
(For the sarcasm-impaired moderators: that last smiley was a wink. To show I'm being sarcastic and silly. Don't get riled up because I'm indirectly flaming moderators. I've been a moderator on many occasions. And I can take a joke. I see the 'flamebait' moderation of my previous post as a joke. So there. :)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
This news gives a little more meaning to Apples G4 commercial about a group of tanks defending the G4 box. Does this mean Apple will annouce a new color, "Army Green?"
-Vel
Sure, there aren't many Mac Webservers out there. But as long as you take proper care of it, it makes a great server. It's not Linux, mind you, but Linux is Linux and Mac is Mac. Each does things differently. I'm sure the Army has its reasons for choosing MacOS; I doubt it's any OSS-related FUD seeing as they could have switched to one of a number of commercial Unices as well.
I know of Mac boxes that have had over a year of uptime (this was a while back, and as a consequence they were still running System 7.6, one of releases which wasn't exactly known for stability). It's all a matter of taking care of the thing.
Admittedly, though, I'm dumbfounded as to why they didn't use Apache (which does have a Mac port; a company called Tenon maintains it under the name WebTen, though I think they might have closed off their branch of the code). WebStar does have its own advantages, though.
I wonder if they'll switch to Apache/OSX when it comes out (hell, why didn't they do it now? OSX Server comes with it; even Darwin comes with it, and yes the CGI bug has been fixed).
Memory Protection has nothing to do with the user level of a given process (program as you called it). The kernel determines whether the code being executed currently is running in user mode or root user mode or supervisor (kernel) mode. It has nothing to do with the memory mapping. Read a book or two.
I wonder if this stuff would protect a G4 from the HERF Gun mentioned on /. today...
it might, but I know for sure those tanks wouldn't. Oh the joys of anachronistic paradox.
+&x
There are various programs (Like folderbolt) that "lock" files and folders (directories in Unix speak)...even entire disks. Like with Unix, you can attribute different levels of access...deny all, read only, write only, etc.
To kick it to the next level, every directory or file can have its own password. Once you are in on a Unix box as root, you have the keys to the candy store.
So if a wily cracker were able to take advantage of a mythical overflow, and by some miracle managed to upload executeable code, when it tries to modify the read-only files, the system it will prompt for a password. Recieving none, it trips all sorts of alarms.
Some of these security programs can also encrypt/decrypt on the fly.
So, the MacOS, alone, is more secure than all but the most carefully audited Unix box. Add something like folderbolt, and security is no longer an issue...even for the Army.
SoupIsGood Food
Maybe Linux with Apache would be more appropriate as a web server that MacOS with WebStar, but wich one is more secure out of the box?
...
If they choose NT in the first place, it's probably because the webmaster have little knowledge about Linux or *BSD. They wanted to have a web server that is easily administered.
Linux/Apache does not offer a platform that is easily administered and it is not secure out of the box. You have to tweak the system configuration to disable some services and install several patches to make it really secure. Even with some graphics tools for Apache, this is a combo that is far less easy to maintain than IIS or WebStar.
Because there where too many security issues with NT/IIS, they choose the most secure platform that is easy to administer wich is MacOS/WebStar.
This is the best option for them, Linux/Apache will be the best option for somebody else.
Stop thinking that Linux/* is the best solution for everybody. This is not a perfect platform nor any other platform is perfect. You want people to be able to choose their OS, then stop commenting theyre choice with "they should use Linux", "Linux is the best", "Linux/Apache can be made as secure as MacOS/WebStar", "Linux all the way",
I'm running Linux on my latop, I have two Win98 box at home, at work I use a NT box and a Solaris box... Diversity is great!!!
That's a heck of a weird theory. On a single-user system, *everything* runs as root.
I've used WebStar and Pictorius before on a Mac (prefer the latter, myself), and it's not half bad as a web server, but I wouldn't put anything stressful on 'em, as I'd be afraid of stability problems.
Remember, Apple was the last big OS vendor to fix the ping-o-death problem (took 'em until MacOS 8).
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
"open source software, on the other hand, allows you to check the source yourself (eg, grep strcpy *.c) and quickly fix known bugs. "
:-)
Um, it's the unknown bugs that are the problem. Making source available does not always result in fewer bugs. At all. There are plenty of rock solid closed applications, and plenty of flakey open source applications*. People who want stability go with stable software, wherever it is from.
The fact that there are fewer crackers or scripts targetting Mac OS does not make Mac OS more secure - but it makes it much less likely to be compromised.
In real life (i.e. the time spend earning your rent/mortgage), running a web site that is unlikely to be hacked is often more useful than running a theoritically more secure one that is likely to be hacked.
*If you really don't believe this, email me for a list
-----
Well, actually there are radar-absorbing materials, in addition to the facetted surfaces that merely 'deflect' the radar energy. (mind you, this is from watching the Discovery Channel waaay too much :-) )
It is true from what I recall that the major radar-evading mechanism of the f-117a is the physical structure which causes the radar energy to be reflected by flat surfaces, rather than by rounded surfaces on traditional aircraft that provide the tell-tale signatures that radar systems key on.
But, in addition, radar absorbing materials are used in the construction that reduce the energy returned from critical areas like bomb-bay doors and the canopy.
Don't agree? Check out howstuffworks.com
linux geeks are even more self righteous than mac geeks. and that is OK i guess, as i am quite the self righteous mac geek... yes, opey, even a mac makes a great webserver! WebSTAR can be easily remotely managed with it's Admin app, which, btw, uses port 80 and an encrypted connection. i have an iMac 333 with 160 MB ram running os 8.6 webstar 4.0, Lasso middleware and filemaker with 50 virtual domains on it. i get 130,000 hits a week, (which isn't much), and it is idling! The army's descision to go with a mac just underscores the fact that the mac can and does perform better than NT, and is MUCH easier to manage than NT or any flavor of UNIX...
Ah, cool, thanks for clearing that up. What about its TCP/IP stack though? Is it based on BSD's still, and hence still filled with the fun vulnerabilities (such as Ping O' Death)?
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Most computers are more than powerfull enough to flood a T1. I am sure the of has plenty of horespower.
As for security. Most of the apple web servers use Apples fairly old ACL per directory for file shareing. The Permission are secure and have stood up to time. As far as connecting to the files system from remote if you use another Mac it does indeed encrypt the passwd.
The Mac has very limited functionality for networking built in on MacOS, this makes it more secure. Apple fixed the TCP/IP large packet bug back in 1995. The current IP stack is fairly fast and based on the System V steam type TCP/IP stack.
Most of the Apple web site security issues have been from Filemaker integration. Filemaker is a GUI DB for MacOS (it has issues).
One of the other advantages to not having any cosole based applications, no concept of standard in and standard out, is if you do run an application on the Mac it doesn't do anything usefull. Also MacOS doesn't have any sensible kind of IPC or RPC support so even if you can compromise a single application it is extremly difficult to get to the operating system or another application.
If you did use Perl, your perl scripts need to be safe. But again on a Mac, there is no plain text file that you could grab security information.
Open BSD could be made equally secure, but it would take lots of customization and intelligence about it, the Mac is VERY high security for default configuration. Though flexibility is an issue with Macs.
"His[Mankind's] heaven is like himself: strange, interesting, astonishing, grotesque." -Satan "Letters From Earth" Mar
Macs make secure web servers because they don't have anything to exploit. How the hell are you going to exploit something that has NOTHING listening to the network except an HTTPD listening to port 80, delivering a static page. About the only thing you could try is a DoS attack. *NIX boxen usually have 50 daemons running, and often crazy protocols like NIS that make them wide open to attack. WebStar is a solid HTTPD, too. Despite the comments here about Mac OS stability, the fact of the matter is that most of the problems with it are due to lack of memory protection. If you are running a solid application that doesn't have memory leaks and wild hair pointers, it can be very stable. I ran a Mac OS server with AppleShare on a UPS that had an uptime of 3 YEARS. That is stabilty as good as you can get on any system. In reality no server is any better than the stability of the network applications it runs and the OS, and the fact of the matter is if you are careful you can find good Mac OS versions and good applications. Mac hardware was generally better engineered than the PC equivalent (lack of cost pressure I guess) so you had that going for you too. One writer here mentioned Mac OS on a 7100. THAT IS A VERY BAD COMBINATION. The 7100 is a kludge, being the first PPC Mac pasted onto an old Nubus architecture. The Mac OS of the same period had a very crufty emulator as well, and the pair really were unstable. But not all Macs are that way....
I found the 'divide by zero' excuse really amusing, and the response that a $2.95 calculator cannot be crashed in this manner is priceless!
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
AFAIK if they are using Webstar they must be running MacOS 8.x, not MacOS X server as some previous comments suggested.
In the June 1999 issue of MacTech Magazine there was an interview with Chuck Shotton. He is the guy who created, in 93, the first Mac http server MacHTTP, which later became Webstar.
In the interview he explains how they made Webstar into a high-performance web server. To summarize:
a) use of caching to avoid hitting on the dog slow MacOS filesystem
b) optimizations to have the right balance between I/O time and calculation/processing time
c) taking advantage of the MacOS thread manager and the fact the MacOS 8.x is NOT a premptive multitasked OS.
c) will sounds odd to most; what they do is that since the app has control over the premption (rather than the OS) they use that advantage to minimize the number of context switches, etc. i.e. they have their own highly tuned and specific scheduler rather than relying on the generic scheduler of the OS.
This is pretty cool on a dedicated MacOS box that do just web server.
As for MacOS crashing, my router is running MacOS 8.6, it has been up & running nicely since I last booted it, one month ago; it has never crashed so far.
Note: I'm not saying MacOS is the best, fatest and most stable OS out there; just that for some applications a Mac can be stable and fast plenty.
As far as security go, since you can't remotely login on a Mac and since there is no shell, you don't have any risk of someone exploiting some buffer overflow bug or remotely using the box. (Note tho that you could add softwares to control you Mac remotely, like Timbuktu or VNC, but then you are taking risks, as on any other OS with such means.)
Just my $0.02
Janus
Actually for a target like a military organazation, it's tough to say. However if you set up the PPC correctly you can have a very secure webserver that can back up over the network without fear of security issues inside the network.
What you need is the Mac, and a second NIC. Running non-MacOS X set up the web server. Set the first NIC in OpenTransport to use TCP/IP and set it up appropriately. Now run a cable from the _second_ NIC to the backup/storage(EMC?) server that should be behind the firewall. Have this NIC run AppleTalk though the AppleTalk control Panel. THIS IS SECURE vecause without 3rd party extensions or AppleShareIP Server a Mac CANNOT communicate TCP/IP over 2 NIC's or Appletalk over 2 NIC's. Thus you have the webserver using TCP/IP and the backups and updates coming in through File Sharing using Appletalk. It's very easy to set up and it works very well.
Since the Mac has no command line by nature it is very hard to breech security, and any breech would come through the web server itself or directly through memeory manipulation of the TCP stack (ha!). The only way to get into the other network qould be to have GUI access to the SErver, which can only be done with more 3rd party extensions.
my login may not be working, but i am chainsaw1 (chainsaw1@hotmail.com)
Linux on the other hand can be very secure, but only after it has been properly set up, by someone who knows security and Linux well.
Which brings up the question, "Why has no one offered a distribution of Linux specifically geared towards web serving" . Such a distribution would be great. One that leaves off all the unneccessary protocols, daemons, and such. One that forces you on initial configuration to set up all the neccessary security blocks. And finally, one that makes it easy to begin webserving, by supplying Apache already with SSL, PHP, and mod_perl; MySQL; Perl with DBI and a CPAN that works, etc... Such a distribution would firmly seat Linux as the best webserver platform.
But as it is, its tough getting a webserver up securely and with all the bells and whistles under Linux. I wish it were easier.
Rikkers
While I respect the opinions of the author, I'm not entirely sure I agree with everything he has to say.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
I've been reading the replies to this article and I have to say I am simply *astounded* by the ignorance towards the Mac and MacOS that I have read.
I logged onto the Army site and it came up really fast. It was not Slashdotted as many other sites get after being listed on Slashdot. One ignorant reader even jumped to blame the MacOS because he was not able to get onto the site. I've got news for that person, there are many reasons *you* can't reach site, the most likely is that the problem is the connection between your client machine and the server. Also, does that same reader blame Linux when Slashdot had all the frequent downtime not too long ago?
Another reader mentioned that the server probably cost "1000s" of times what their (certainly hypothetical) presumably Linux server would cost. When is the last time he/she shopped for a Mac? I've got news for you, Macs use all the same compenents as PCs these days and cost about the same for a *comparable quality* PC. Apple simply chooses higher quality parts than the crappy machines one can buy at CompUSA and, worse, Circuit City. Oh let me guess, that person is going to "put together" their own hand built machine. Good for you, I just wouldn't want to be the poor sap who has to maintain your little computer project when it has a hardware problem. I mean who would I call for customer support? You? Give me a break. You just want an excuse to bill your client.
Then there's the *cost* of maintanence. The Mac server will be configure and forget. Configuration will take about 15 minutes. Let's use a 14 year boy who can do it at minumum wage, that's about $1 for his time. Now a Linux server is going to take, what, all day, to configure with security. At $100+/hr that's about $800 setup fee. Oh and what happens when your Linux server gets cracked because you didn't hire the supreme Linux security gurus (for much more $/hr) - or the latest security flaw of the month in Unix is discovered? That costs money to fix too.
And then there's the people who think the Mac needs to be re-booted once a week. That was about 5 years ago with MacOS 7.6. Today's Macs with MacOS 8.6 will probably need to be re-booted only when replacing the hard drive or an extended power failure. No, the memory is not protected, but at least the web page is from crackers.
It's not like the Mac does not have protected memory. Apple makes a server OS called MacOS X Server and it does. But it also has the underlying security issues because it is based on Unix. The (wise) managers don't want to have to deal with crackers - Get it?
To all you Linux bigots, I hope you don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back for putting down the Mac server. The Army's Mac is running great and makes a great web server. To Roblimo I have to say that the only thing that is funny is the attitude that Linux is superior to all OSes for everything. Some of us just want the job done and don't need to show our "superior" computer skills because we understand a CLI and our manager does not. Enjoy yourselves in your hacking, I've got work to do!
everyone keeps saying "use linux, not a mac". macs are hardware, linux is software; so that statement makes no sense. as for me, i run linux on a mac.
One of the things a Mac has going for it, as a web server platform, is that it is not multiuser. Neither is NT, really, but Microsoft has added enough multiuser features to it to make it exploitable (install IIS and you get a dozen services by default, like echo, time, chargen, and other services). With a Mac, there is none of that. Run a web server without CGI access (put a few CGI scripts on another machine running a Mac-native scripting language/environment like Frontier) and you have a near unexploitable machine. One that is of limited functionality, but why should a web server do dozens of things? Most sites are not like slashdot, and use 99+% static content.
With the new G3 and G4 (I haven't used a G4 but the G3's are very fast) processors, Macs are becoming fast machines. Would I run a web server on a 7200? No thank you. Not even on one running NetBSD or Linux, the machine just doesn't have the capacity. But MacOS 8.6 (or whatever) on a G3 or G4, running a dedicated web server program could potentially be a great idea.
darren
(darren)
considering the lawsuits that Apple is putting to emachines and related companies concerning the "look" of a computer, i don't think they can do the stealth look. See, this look is already taken by IBM with their Netfinity Servers. They're big, flat black, and look like something straight out of the Death Star. You can almost imagine james earl jones's synthesized voice booming out of the server when it gives you an alert message. Actually, that'd be kind of a kewl idea for marketting the Netfinity servers... screw that e-commerce bullshit, market the look of it as futuristic, radar invisible, and capable of destroying worlds. Now that would be kewl advertising.
This is absurd. There's much more to security than whether the system includes a command line. Someone argued that a single-user system is more secure than a multiuser system because it has no root account. That's a complete crock. The MacOS (pre-OS-X) has no memory protection to speak of. So *every* program runs with what amounts to "root" privileges.
/bin/sh, but, hell, if you can run arbitrary code with operator-level access I'm sure you can think of something. One more reason why designing a system for multiuser access from the beginning is simply a Good Thing, whatever the disigenuous claims of MacOS apologists.
If you exploit a buffer overflow in Apache on a multiuser system you end up with access restricted to whatever user the daemon is running as. But if there is a buffer overflow in Webstar or any scripts it calls on the Mac, then exploiting it gives you root-level access to the entire system. Sure, you have to do something more clever than just spawning a
I used to run LinuxPPC on my 7200 and it was alright... but only after i had 256 of RAM... The Army, having switched from one platform to another, probably might plan to go MacOSX Server or LinuxPPC in the future... but probably won't, knowing them, until someone does something stupid again... either way, the G4 smokes. We have two of them here at work and on photoshop they are ridiculous. without the altivec "Velocity Engine" -enable Steve's RDF- it's only about 30% faster then the G3/400 we have. either way, it's a step in the right direction.
In
security through obscurity == no security
that is, if you rely on the intruders' ignorance as your primary line of defense, you are completely screwed the moment you encounter an intruder whose knowledge includes information about the holes in your system.
much better to have a system whose exploitabilities are known and repairable than to have a system whose holes are unknown and unrepairable.
A lot of posts here are calling for a Linux/Apache solution to the Army's problem. Ahem... [[stepping on soap box]]
Keep in mind what these army folks were looking for: a secure, virtually administration-free, relatively stable webserver that is resistent to remote attacks. For that application, a Mac server makes sense.
Why didn't they choose *nix? The admins probably aren't big tech heads, and the fact that several flavors of UNIX are free probably scared off their superiors anyway. But for this application (remeber, they're concerned with remote attacks) I'd say MacOS is definately more secure for a couple of reasons:
- No shell, thus no root shell (duh!)
- The lack of publicly known kernel knowledge (has anyone even tried hacking a Mac?)
- Not multi-user
- No remote access
My point is, thinking Linux is the correct OS for every application (and advocating it that way) is just plain naive.
--Mid
.. in "Practical Unix and Internet Security" (the Safe Book, IIRC) that use of the Mac is preferred, though he was referring not to OS X (since it didn't exist yet) but the regular MacOS. His theory is that the single-user system is tighter without a root account, and you can tighten things down without ever having to worry about someone getting root. Not sure I can totally buy it. Its in the index somewhere, I forgot the page reference and I'm not sure where my copy is right his second...
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
So any knowledgable hackers want to enlighten the ignorant among us as to the virtues of Mac web servers? I'd be really interested how they stack up to the favorite Slashdot choices such as Linux, OpenBSD (I mention it over other *BSDs because of its emphasis on security, but obviously hearing about {Free,Net,*}BSD would be cool too), and even commercial Unices like Solaris. Any takers?
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Netcraft tells us:
www.army.mil is running WebSTAR/4.0 ID/70636 on MacOS
And it's not a G4.... the headlines on www.army.mil tell us that it is a G3...
The heavily trafficked MacIntouch uses Webstar. So, I would say that MacOS is a stable platform for a webserver, but no barn burner by any means.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
If you look _only_ from a security point of view, I think something like a Mac wins hands down.
With *nix, even if you deleted telnetd, ftpd and what have you from the system altogether, there are still too many potential holes.
The abscence of a command shell of any kind in Mac OS makes it harder to trick a network service into executing commands or code.
The OS is not readily available to hackers and not widely used in any case. Likewise the web server.
Of course in functionality terms its a mess, and in reliability terms it's not great. But if I was asked to create a secure web server for flat files, I'd get a Mac with a http server and nothing else. Transfer data to it via floppy or CD-Rom. Access it via direct keyboard/monitor only. Run nothing except ping and http. NOTHING except those.
-----