Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Experts Say Linux is Secure, Windows Not
Sara Chan writes "An expert at the British government's computer security headquarters, CESG (Communications-Electronics Security Group) has endorsed Linux along with the open source model for software development as the most secure computer architecture available. CESG is the sister organisation of the GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), which is roughly the British equivalent of the American NSA (National Security Agency). There is also a warning against "a competing commercial product with hidden source code." For details, see the
ZDNet UK story."
The Brits would always do something opposite to the Americans - not even a month ago did NT passed C2 certification in network operations (and that's from NSA, guys). I wonder, did someone forced NSA do give this certification to Windows? Or maybe the procedures they used in evaluating Windows were different from those used in evaluating Linux? For those of you who use Attrition's defaced mail list, take a look on the stats. Judging by the fact that Windows NT is becoming even more and more popular as a web server (and most of these servers are administered by idiots, which is a totally different song), there is no significant difference between defacements made on NT and on on other operating systems. We use W2k from the very beginning of it;s history. Our wbeservers have uptimes of 3000 and more hours. No one could break in. Wanna try? Please do: http://nt.security.net.pl Regards - Wojtek
Wojtek wojtek@security.net.pl http://nt.security.net.pl 1987 Fiero GT
I find the spokeswoman's quote to be interesting, and misleading. She never said Windows 2000 was more secure than Linux or any other OS for that matter. She said that it's just the most secure operating system MS has shipped, which isn't saying much. From what she said, she really didn't seem like she knew much about win2000. Those MS PR people are full of bs and fud.
meow
If anything they will just use Double$peak. They could release source only for the same code they document now for developers and hype their "New Open Source Windows 2002!!!" while key aspects of security and interoperability features are quietly kept closed.
I wouldn't bet on any right to make your own mods, either - there will probably be the usual unilateral license "agreement" that you invoke by just looking at the code.
I am very much afraid that we live in interesting times.
But computers are being used to run battleships. I guess it could be argued that a shipboard network is not tied to the outside world but most networks are hacked from within by lower grade users. It would be hard to bribe a sysadmin but probably you could bribe a cook to gain access to a network, hack admin, and download secrets.
War is necrophilia.
Microsoft doesn't need to put any sort of nefarious back doors into the products. They have their shrinkwrap licenses to fall back on if need be.
They lose the anti-trust case and BAM! they just revoke every license the DOJ has for a Microsoft product. This in turn makes another law suit happen and Microsoft get's another few years of unhindered profit growth.
The upside would be that the world would finally get a definitive ruling on whether or not shrinkwrap licenses are legal.
There is one. KhA0s Linux. Despite the silly name (53k00r1733 /\/\4k35 U 3r337) it looks like it will be pretty cool if it ever flies and is definitely being built with security in mind. Crypto filesystem and other nifties are on their list of features. They are looking for help, too.
Lemme see if I can find a url...
Ah. Here it is.
Enjoy!
The MS spokeswoman may be asserting the truth. Win2000 may be the most secure OS that MS have released, but that's measured relative to the security of their previous efforts, which has been nothing special. She's opposing an absolute with a relative; obviously those debating society classes came in useful for her...
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
My school recently recieved some computers from a company called ZapMe! They are completely locked down WinNT boxes that atuomatically log themselves on (so you cant guess at the admin password). All keyboard shortcuts are disabeled (including ctrl-alt-del) so you cant get anywhere. The only way to do anything is to take out the BIOS battery (BIOS is password protected), change the boot order to A:,C: and pop in a boot disk. A simple locking case could stop you from doing all that. So, yes, a Windows box can be made secure.
Anonymous Hay goes in and I come out...
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
His comment... "Windows was built for a single computer and then the network was added on as an afterthought."
is kind of interesting.
Unix was built for a single computer and then the network was added on as an afterthought as well.
So I assume he's speaking of just Linux, right?
But then which Windows is he speaking of? Sure Windows 3.1 didn't have networking built in to begin with.
But Windows NT was designed with the network in mind.
I find it interesting how blindly Linux advocates jump onto bandwagons. The quotes from this individual show about as much thought as your typical marketing droid.
See, the problem isn't JUST that Microsoft is slow to fix problems like that (they are), but that in all too many instances, the "fixes" are totally half-assed - they don't actually fix the root problem, they just band-aid it. If Microsoft would learn to fix their bugs the RIGHT way.
Another problem is that you can end up jumping through hoops to get a Microsoft fix, e.g. the msnp32.dll update.
I also think it's great that "security through obscurity" is being attacked so dead-on, especally in ZDNet. The more people who know and realize that Windows cannot be secure because of its license, the better.
Part of the problem is that what is obscure cannot be relied upon to stay obscure. There is also the problem of "monoculture" where all the parts of a system are provided as unmodifiable binaries
AMEN, I Agree totaly. Sure our as/400 is secure. But doesn't have as many uses linux/bsd I use linux because thats what i'm good at.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
not realy. Seenings as the NT boxes were replaced by linux.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
NT started out as OS/2, jointly developed between IBM and MS. They split, MS took thier share of the code, IBM took thiers. I think (though I may be wrong) that OS/2 was intended as an end user desktop type thing with the option of being a server. So, NT was an accident and was originally intended as a dual purpose operating system. I'm not sure what this comment accomplished.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
Recompiling login would be insufficient; however, there's no reason you can't remove all accounts with UID 0 from the passwd file.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
And my faith in the U.S Government goes up a notch. Interesting article isn't it? Too bad I'm Canadian and can't claim the good words to come from my own Government.
With citizenship issues,
Matthew
_____________________________________
sortakinda.ca | canadian paraphrasing.
Perhaps in your experience. My installs have always been stable.
I thought this person, Througton, as a representative of the government would give us an objective comparison of technical security issues between Linux and whatever. But he doesn't. When he says:
he's not convincing with technical arguments. What he says is just a matter of trust, because he cannot see the source code. But trust doesn't tell me whether or not an OS is secure. Technical facts do. Is Novell insecure because I cannot see the source code? And what about the commercial Unix-flavours? Banyan Vines? What about all the software embedded in our network hardware?This article doesn't tell me anything new. I hoped that someone from a government, someone independent, could give me some objective arguments. But this article is just another bash in the pro/contra MS fight.
Arleohmm..cant you run Horizon under WINE ??
Also, The NT4SP3 security thing is basically bullshit. Download the DLL cache posion attack from l0pht or bugtraq and you can rootkit an NT4SP3 system in seconds.
BTW, it also works against NT4SP4 and it can make the Guest account Administrator (oops).
I prefer something I can look at. I mean, I really don't trust an engine I can't work on. Why should I trust an OS I can't pull up the code and read with a cup of Coke?
Besides, if there's a bug, about 300 Slashdotter's will point it out. Best system in the world.
(Slashdotters... sounds like we are all Icelandic.)
Um... is this meant as pure flamebait, or are you just being ignorant?
My Linux distribution came on 6 CDs, and that wasn't just all kernels...
bla
Is this REALLY that difficult? :) WinNT is, how many, 4 or 5 years old and yet still there are severe security flaws coming out in the CORE operating system. Sure Linux has had a few security holes here and there but they've been patched pretty much 'instantly' and most of them weren't in the kernel (ie. the core OS) but in tools like Sendmail and whatever.
Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about (well, probably ;)) but I don't see how people can even consider running some of the things they run on NT.
On an unrelated note, i'm just rambling because it's Christmas Eve (well, 3:30pm) and I want to go home but I have to wait for some lame-arse Y2K update to post on the Intranet before I go.. [sigh]
..
(An expert at the British government's computer security headquarters, CESG (Communications-Electronics Security Group) has endorsed Linux along with the open source model for software development as the most secure computer architecture available.
.and.
He says, "Windows was built for a single computer and then the network was added on as an afterthought. Also it's closed source, and I would never ever trust someone else completely with security.")
vs.
A Microsoft spokeswoman, however, disputes these perspectives, claiming that Microsoft's closed-source software is more secure than ever.
Marketing vs. Reality isn't a fair fight...
+&x
The real question, is what a non-geek is doing posting to slashdot.
Hooray and rejoice, we reinforce the fact that Linux is better than Windows. But this is a double edged blade, and for this reason: with the antitrust suit against MS going on, what happens when someone judges that there is fair competition again Microsoft? The whole trial could go down the shitter just because we won the ego war. I say, wait till the trial is over and done with before proving what great competition Linux is.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
A Microsoft spokeswoman, however, disputes these perspectives, claiming that Microsoft's closed-source software is more secure than ever. "Windows 2000 is the most secure operating system Microsoft has ever shipped," she says. "Among other things, entire development teams were focused solely on searching out security issues within the beta code; Microsoft posted a public Internet beta test site for customers to test the security of the system, and new development processes were put in place to ensure that the system was built from the ground up with security as a key objective."
Yep. Everyone remembers that public test website.
There is no way an OS the size of W2K can not have security issues and still be hidden from peer review.
Also, "among other things, entire development teams were focused solely on searchng out security issues..." How can you be focused "solely" on security, "among other things" ?? "Watcha up to, alan?" "Well, I am focused solely on security, among other things."
Finally, I don't believe they built the system from the ground up, either.
It won't be available to the public until Feb.
Er, yes it is actually - to anyone who has an MSDN Universal subscription, or who is part of the Microsoft Select plan. And that's a LOT of people.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
but, please lay off of using FUD as an all-purpose word for mis-information. it's a specific case of malicious mis-information, and does not apply in this case.
It's used to mean disinformation. If you don't like that, then tough - it's the same thing that happened with the word hacker (I don't like that, but that's tough too).
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
WTS is also (in my experience) usually *faster*
Get an x protocol compressor such as dxpc.
Pointless post.
But I thought it was rather ammusing my self.
Doug.
First of all, this wasn't some organization promoting this view -- it was just an individual. Now, he's called an expert, but it's silly not to look at that with some perspective. Such as all the "military experts" telling us that Operation Desert Storm better bring a lot of body bags because the Iraqi Republican Guard was so brutal. We all know how this turned out. Or, the "societal experts" telling us how welfare reform in the U.S. would destroy the lower classes. Again, this didn't happen. In both cases, the experts' position was often affected by personal biases: people against the Persian Gulf war in the former case, and big-government proponents in the latter. When you look at what Mr. Troughton says, I think it's pretty clear that he's a GNU/Linux advocate through and through, and that it's likely that his Linux endorsement stems from that.
The most blatent evidence of his bias was the quote, "Linux is as secure as you can make a computer." Honestly now, do even Linux advocates here believe that? Even if you think that Linux is the best OS out there (because of a combination of its various strengths), I don't think any rational person would even try to put forth that argument. This is the main reason why I think he's a Linux fan who's trying to promote it by saying that it's the most secure OS, as opposed to someone who became a Linux fan because he found it to be the most secure OS.
Secondly, he made other quotes that made him sound like your good ol'-fashioned OS advocate. Namely, that Alan Cox is the best programmer on Earth, and "I've heard he writes code like Richard Stallman." I'm not saying that Mr. Cox is or isn't the best, but these statements sound less like they came from a dispassionate seeker of the most secure OS and more like your garden variety GNU/Linux-advocating name-dropper. Basically, the only thing that was missing was to hear him say, "Linus r00lz."
In other words, I'd take Mr. Troughton's words with an extremely large grain of salt.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
We normally have NT uptimes of several months. The servers are overpowered and underworked. The servers do not have Exchange, screen savers or Microsoft Office. Stable? Only as long as no one rocks the boat. Whenever a system is a bit strange, reboot. If it looks like it has lost its marbles, hit the power switch. Security? Enough to prevent most users from installing applications, on a par with locks that can be opened with a penknife or credit card. For us it is more than enough, but we do not assume it meets any reasonable criteria of secure.
When Linux users are quoting uptimes, you can reasonably assume that that box has been subjected to some degree of abuse without having deteriorated the base system. Push NT and best plan on rebooting very soon. Do anything remotely complicated in Microsoft office and plan on rebooting.
Sorry about the ramble, but I am trying to point out that NT _can_ be used effectively, and with long uptimes. I agree with your remark about NT's stability. You just have to walk _very_ carefully. Is this the way systems should be? H*** No!
If you've got a lemon, make lemonaide.
Completely in line with Microsoft's use of the word innovate.
don't be such a total dickhead.
geee, anyone who designs a pencil that has no eraser should be charged with criminal negligence.
OSs come in many forms, and for many purposes. I suppose you wnat your washing machine to have security too.
Perhaps you should try to sue apple for making an OS with no security as well? At least Microsoft have NT, which has MUCH MUCH higher security granuality than Linux (security on just about every object).
That is coming from someone in a bureaucracy. Bureaucrats do _not_ speak publicy as a single lone voice.
When will these people realize that the software is only as secure as the knowledge of the person who set it up permits it to be. Sure I can setup one hell of a secure NT or Linux installation. But what about my the partner in my dad's firm who is defacto sys-admin for the firm? He isn't going to understand alot about configuring Linux. He will be able to understand the totally point and click/wizard environment of Windows NT. I would be willing to bet that with the time he has available a NT server he sets up will be more secure than a Linux one. (if he had one to setup.) (Note I am not talking about the default setup, I'm talking about him taking some time to customize it to his needs.) Wizards as obnoxious as they are can be quite useful to establish a base setup which you can then customize, or leave alone if you don't understand it.
Studies like this have always meant and will continue to mean very little IMO. Just like the NT C2 certification means very little this means very little to Linux. We shouldn't get our heads inflated over stuff like this and go around pretending like we are all high and mighty because we use Linux and are "secure".
But you miss my point - NT 4 was evaluated (just in the past month or 2) for C2 Orange Book - it was NOT certified, only evaluated. And really, NT itself wasn't what was being evaluated - it was a _particular_ installation, on a particular system, and a certification would ONLY apply to that configuration, not any other(s). Also, in the US, C2 Orange Book is the bottom rung for security evaluation/certification. It's not exactly "high-security" stuff.
So as I said before, don't get the wrong impression of what a C2 certification (or even the UK's equivalent) really means.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
A Microsoft spokeswoman, however, disputes these perspectives [Microsoft security vs Linux security], claiming that Microsoft's closed-source software is more secure than ever [W2K vs NT4, or with vs without the latest security patches].
I'm a bit rusty with logic, but this seems to be the fallacy of equivocation.
hmm...so does my NT box....what does our bragging prove? nothing, so why do we bother making these comments?
with Windows 2000.
Microsoft.
'nuff said.
It works the other way around too! Most administrators, when asked if their network is secure, reply "of course, we're behind a firewall." There's almost always a way to get code executed on a system, even if you cant do it directly. Once that happens, your firewall is useless.
First of all, I am a linux geek and I honestly don't know much about Windows security. However, if it works as well as everything else in Windows then it's a wonder your average 2yo can't take over an NT domain.
:P
That said, this is my personal experience with Windows' granular security. I work graveyards at a national ISP in the network operations center. In the daytime my computer (running NT) is used by an admin. Of course a peon like me can't have full access to an admin's machine, so it has been locked down in my profile. As it stands, I can't use corporate mail because I can't log in to the exchange server. I can't install anything. I can't use AIM because I don't have access to my own buddy lists. I can't use ICQ because I can't install it. I can put files on my desktop but then I can't delete them unless I drop into a dos shell. Etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps this is all due to the incompetence of the admin. However, when I look at how easy permissions are to set up in Linux, I have to think that either NT permissions are crap or I am being actively sabotaged by the admin. The admin is a pretty nice guy, so...
silver
PS - The CEO made the decision to put NT in the NOC, not the admins. They all have Linux or BeOS as well.
IANAE (I am not as eskimo), but I seem to recall from somewhere that with skins or blankets on the floor and walls, an inside temperature of about 55 degrees Farenheit is normal with oil lamps inside and outside winds and temperatures around -55 degrees Farenheit. Not cozy but better than dixie on a frosy morning.
actually i believe getadmin.exe is a local exploit.
make that _frosty_ morning. Sorry about that.
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 SP3 was certified in March 1999 at assurance level E3 and functionality class F-C2 under the UK ITSEC scheme - see the UK ITSEC scheme site for details. This is essentially C2 functionality, but with a higher assurance level (ITSEC E2/F-C2 is approximately TCSEC C2). I have not found any version of Linux certified under any scheme.
The UK ITSEC scheme is jointly managed by CESG and DTI, and is based in Cheltenham - which is also where you will find CESG and GCHQ. So we have NT passing ITSEC at the same level as conventional versions of Unix (i.e. the ones without MLS) under a scheme managed by CESG, and an expert from CESG reported as saying that Linux is more secure because the source is open to scrutiny. Note that the article does not say in what forum the remarks were made, so we are dependent on a journalist reporting accurately here.
There are various things you can take from this. One is that ITSEC E3/F-C2 (and also TCSEC C2) is not much of a hurdle to jump in terms of real security - Linux could probably jump that hurdle, but has not been put to the test. The second is that CESG has at least one person who is aware of the value of openness - but is reported as having the strange view that "Linux is as secure as you can make a computer," and also "Unix [on which Linux is based] is the paradigm that the computer is the network".
Linux as available today is certainly not as secure as a computer could be made. It could be made very secure, and the openness means that anyone can have a go at verifying and improving the security, but that is not the only option. I would expect SCO CMW+ (certified at E3/F-B1) to be more secure than the average Linux without the benefit of open source.
The important thing is for designers and implementers who really care about security, and who have enough experience to know what they are doing, to have real input into the process.
One probelm, how am i gonna get it on the computer. I cant download to the computer (almost everything is proxied out), i cant put it on a floppy can copy it (no access to Explorer), i cant boot off a disk (boot order is set to C:,Network,A: and BIOS is password protected). Thanks for the help anyway :)
Anonymous Hay goes in and I come out...
NT doesn't get owned, it just gets crashed.
That's not true at all. There have been several documented incidents of compromised NT servers. BO2k is just a small example.
Dave
It won't be available to the public until Feb.
Dave
Although I am a strong Linux advocate, my first thought was about Open BSD as well. But to quote the article exactly:
Linux along with the open source model for software development as the most secure computer architecture available.
I took it as saying that Linux AND the open source model. So isn't Open BSD open sourced. Although I know there are differences in the license. So Linux is what stands out most in the view of the public. I believe that Linux is a stepping stone to the others (*BSD). Linux is more user friendly IMO.
So I believe this is more of comparing open source to closed source. So you *BSD people don't get alarmed. The more exposure that Linux receives, the more exposure the *BSDs do to. In fact, I never heared of the *BSDs (besides the original) before I started using Linux. Now I recommend Open BSD for those that need a tight secure system.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
'Shipping to manufacturing' is not the same as 'shipping to customers'. I don't consider any product as 'shipping' unless ordinary customers can receive it. Note that this precludes unsupported betas, release candidates to the select few, et cetera.
MS is just trying to pretend they kept their promise to ship before the end of 1999, which they have not, because Win2k will not be shipping to customers before Feb 2000 at the earliest.
According to Ken himself (sorry, I've forgotten the link into dejanews), it never left USG/AT&T research... and that one started as a trojan, IIRC
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Well, it is, actually, because a properly updated system will keep the script kiddies at bay. You see:
- Bad Hacker finds new security hole and takes advantage of it
- Good Hacker finds said hole, patches it and reports it
- Script Kiddies who only get their stuff from security sites won't be able to crack an updated system
or:Either way it's *almost* a win-win situation, except the Bad Hacker could do some damage, but then, he would do the same on, say Windows NT. The good thing is that damage is limited to the unlucky admin who got his system compromised. Everyone else laughs in joy, though.
It is the easiest thing in the worl for X employee to come along, not knowing totally about how to use it, and screw things up in a few minutes.
Not with Linux, where you have different accounts for each user. No one works as superuser (root) - this account is only for system administration. I think you are too used to playing around with Windows 9x, where this, indeed, is a potential problem.
Linux takes an intrusively longer period of time to secure and keep updated
That depends. If you have a server running, it should be dedicated, running as few other services as possible, at least in a Government situation. Since the box is running very few things, updating the single demon running won't be that hard.
In essence, the UK Govt should stick to NT or whatever else they run for now, learn how to use computers and above all, keep updated and learn how to patch.
The UK Govt should stick to a secure OS, like Linux or *BSD. The reason is simple: Security holes are found and patched quickly. If an NT security hole is uncovered, MS will take their sweet time to fix it, compromising your data.
You aren't laughing anymore, are you?
Oh, and Merry Christmas to you, even though you did pull out a last attempt at FUD tactics ;-)
It's generally required to alter a default config, tho... and I would expect it, actually. Sure, OpenBSD is secure out of the box, but it may not fit user X as shipped... but it's generally accepted that "OpenBSD is more secure than Linux."
"Secure" is a rather subjective term amongst all OSs anyway... depends on who set it up, what other stuff they installed, etc... etc...
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
But once you know the password for an nt user
with permission to run user manager and alter
privileges (and are in a permission to login)
then you can do whatever you like too. For
example you assign yourself the backup
privilege which allows you to access any file
on the disk.
I think a BSD based system is the best bet for any government. They have the source and are not obligated to share any enhancements they make to the OS.
If they use a modified linux internally and are distributing binaries they are under no obligation to publish their modifications.
OpenBSD would probably be more secure though.
This matches my experience with WTS compared to X, presuming you're not running X with lbxproxy (supposedly with lbxproxy, their performance can be comparable, but I've haven't personally tried it). With a terminal server session forwarded through ssh, it is smooth enough to remotely administer nt fairly painlessly from my home, which is typucally 20-25 hops away from the university where I work.
As for other methods of remote shells, (for the non-w2k or nt4tse fortunate people) it should be pointed out that NT4 did come with telnetd on the reskit, although the inf that came with it required a minor rewrite before you could use it to install it. The reskit also included rconsole and rcmd, and then are a couple ports of sshd to run on nt (although the couple I've looked at were built ontop of cygwin32... the idea of a security-conscious package being built ontop of cygwin32 is kind of amusing). And then of course win2k comes with a kerborized telnet daemon.
Back to terminal server, a disadvantage with nt4tse was you had to buy licenses for the number of concurrent client connections, even if you were just using it for remote administration and not as an application server. This is improved somewhat with win2k -- you can have a limited number of admins connect via terminal server without a license, but they have to be administrators.
-- Scott
I think a BSD based system is the best bet for any government. They have the source and are not obligated to share any enhancements they make to the OS.
If they use a modified linux internally and are not distributing binaries they are under no obligation to publish their modifications.
OpenBSD would probably be more secure though.
=)
The security of a system depends alot more on the knowledge and skill of the admin than the system used. If you put me in control of the OpenBSD box and confront me to a skilled NT admin, I wouldn't stand a chance of securing the box as well as the skilled NT guy (ot: does such a person actually exist?), because I have no experience at all with computer security.
;)
Linux, *BSD, NT, VMS, it doesn't matter all that much as long as you take the time to learn the stuff you need to secure your system... The right tool for the job.
BTW: I'm learning
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Yes, but the System account on a non-domain controller has no network access. Therefore, you might own a machine by 'getting System' but are unable to use that machine to probe or attack other machines.
It may not be able to open smb connections to domain resources and have those connections transparently authenticated (which is what ms means in the docs by "no network access"), it does have *complete* control over the local system, meaning if it is compromised, there are ways to get access to domain resources.
For example, by default lsass caches the password hashes of every domain user that has logged onto the local system so that it can still allow users to logon even if it can't contact a domain controller. Since ntlm (the default authentication method between nt4 boxes) does a challenge-response based on that hash, the system account of a local machine has everything it needs to gain access to domain resources as any user that has logged onto the local machine (assuming the user has not changed their password since they logged onto that particular mchine).
Now granted, most script kiddies don't have the knowledge of nt to attempt this, but if I remember correctly the rootkit Greg Hoglund and those guys were working on included a tool that did something like this.
Even if a hostile didn't want to go to that much trouble, they can still run *anything* they want on the local machine, packet sniffers, port scanners, whatever.
Having a system account compromise is effectively no different than having a root compromise -- just like an individual machine's root account, which may not directly have unlimited access to other machines on the network, it still has the means to launch attacks, and in most environments, the means to get priviledged access on other machines.
-- Scott
we bought a second hand server with a full windows NT still installed on the hardisk. (twin p90, two scsi hard disks and a 4gb tape drive, bargain!)
l0pht crack got the admin password in seconds and brute forced all the other user passwords in 14 hours.
Yo.
The public == In stores == Read my post next time
Later.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The title of the slashdot article,
"UK Gov't Experts Say Linux is Secure, Windows Not"
can be made shorter:
"UK Gov't Experts Say Linux is Secure, WindowsN'T"
That's what Windows NT means, isn't it?
The problem with the standards you quote are that they have long gone jurassic. They assume single hostile attack not a hostile world.
For example:
SCO passes certifications higher than C2 but it can be r00ted in seconds. And actually could have been r00ted in seconds for a long time... See BUGTRAQ for references.
In btw the xploits currently posted about SCO have been known since 1996. Seen it, been there, been r00ted, replaced SCO with Linux...
The situation with most other commercial Unices is similar.
For example a certified B1 DGUX (4.0 releases) in its unpatched form could have been r00ted with 4 commands issued from the shell prompt... (The dump core along symlinks f... up).
This does not mean that having a proper audit trail under linux would not be nice.
Anyway Linux is reasonably secure (at least as secure as commercial Unices). What it is missing for certification and acceptance is the capability to report its security... And of course a certain glimpce of sanity in the standards will also be nice...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The public == In stores == Read my post next time
I guess Linux was only available to the public from 1998 onwards (or so) then?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
nt's security paradigm definitely does allow much more granularity the unix's model does -- the security for virtually every type of object is managed uniformly, ranging from devices, files, registry keys, active directory objects, services, you name it, and each type of object has very specific rights that can each separately be allowed and auditted.
This is in stark contrast contrast to the unix model, where you have a a limited security mechanism on ipc primitives and anythiing that can be treated as a file, but you only have three kinds of access, and for most other objects there's no way to give someone who's not the owner, root, or sudoer any access.
It can be useful to be able to set the security descriptor on a service, or an arbitrary process, to allow a certain group of users to kill it without having to give them an equivlanet to "sudo kill". Or for a file, to be able to give someone only append accesss. Or to be able to give a running instance of a daemon (not the user it is running as) special access to a particular object.
But while this additional flexibility may be a blessing for a relatively small set of situations, it does make the task of writing security-aware applications for nt a much more involved process than it already is for any architecture, and makes the jobs of auditting a particular system a nightmare.
I personally like the additional functionality alot of the pieces of nt offers over the other architectures I've worked with, but it's definitely not clear to me that its security paradigm is "better" simply because it can do more. Security is something most organizations have to be aware of these days, therefore it should be made as simple as possible. Especially for an os like nt where the vast majority of admins are inexperienced when compared to the admins you find administering other architectures.
What made this even worse was even though nt had this very rich security framework, it comes out of the box with absolutely horrible initial permissions on the two most visible portions, the filesystem, and the registry. Before the security configuration editor appeared with ussp4, coming up with the scripts to secure an out-of-the-box nt install was a an extremely difficult and time consuming process that the vast majority of the sites out there never even attempted.
Microsoft is beginning to come around with the security configuration editor that appeared in ussp4, which brings the ability securing of an nt box to a semi-sane state to within reach of most admins, but we're talking about bringing the initial security up from being (sad to say) not much better than win95, to where it is now perhaps comparable to redhat. It's definitely a *huge* improvement, but there's still some very glaring holes in the permissions applied via the templates, to say nothing of exploits against the underlying system. With win2k, microsoft appears to have made another leap forward in terms of the security of the initial configuration, but imho, it's too early to tell.
But even say microsoft is able to bring win2k up on par with the competitors, that is only a fraction of the effort that will be required to audit it to the level that projects like openbsd have been auditted. Auditting the complete source tree of an entire os like openbsd, even if it is a simple bsd derivative, must have been an absolutely monstrous task. To audit the complete tree of a system as complex as win2k (or even solaris, which atleast was done by a company that allows their people to sleep and go home on weekends) isn't something I believe is possible by any of today's software vendors.
I personally really like nt and would like to see it succede. But with the persasive featurism comes complexity, and complexity is not ones friend when trying to implement a secure system.
-- Scott
And all it took was X (fill in your number here) number of years for them to admit it. According to the "wonderful" people at the US government (who like nice checks from M$) Windows NT has been extremely secure and even C2 secure for years. Great. I could go on and waste everyone's time, but why bother? Good job UK. Maybe US should learn from other countries when it comes to things like this and not rely on their MS-enhanced congressmen.
But thats just my $0.02
-----------------------------
"Its not illegal if you don't get caught."
I'm glad to see the free software/open source concept being recognized like this, but I think it would have been nice if these experts had taken the time to look at other alternatives. I mean, sure Linux is probably more secure than NT, but OpenBSD is way more secure than most Linux distributions (I'm talking about DEFAULT setups here), so declaring Linux to be the most secure open system available is a bit of a crock.
A better comparison is the system account -- it is equivalent to root in that it is the context most of the daemons run in, and has complete control over the local machine.
And like the root user of a central, trusted unix host in a unix shop, the system account of the domain controllers' has complete access on every machine in the domain.
It's not that Linux didn't have some of the same fundamental security bugs that Windows did way back when; Linux was just better about fixing them.
When the string of bogus IP attacks against Windows came out two years ago (teardrop & kin) Linux was vulnerable to the first of them too... but the Linux patch was out within a day or two, whereas Windows was vulnerable for months. To boot, the Linux patch fixed all the similar TCP/IP stack problems, whereas Windows ended up being vulnerable to syndrop, newtear, and a sequence of nearly identical attacks.
I think you missed the point -- remote execution of software is not an inherent ability of Windows NT 3.51 or 4.0 (both of which I've used extensively).
... making the Unix / X way secure because of imitation?
Period.
Yes, there is add-on software, but always an almost exact copy of the way Unix / X does it
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the NSA made this announcement. The inevitable response?
"The NSA must have found some huge security flaws in Linux! They're trying to get us to run it so they can packet-sniff our diffs! Then they can have the newest kernel releases before the Slashdot effect bogs down kernel.org! Conspiracy! (Run BSD instead!)"
I'll quit while I'm ahead, now that I've pissed off just about every special-interest group here...
"I was never 'priviliged'
Hey, thanks, spelling flames against someone writing in a foreign language. That's brave.
************************************************ ***
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Microsoft doesn't sell security through obscurity so much as security through impossiblity. A Windows box has almost no security against users that can execute code on the system. The functionality to remotely execute code (e.g. telnet) isn't there unless you add it. I can walk up to a Windows box and do whatever I want; still, by restricting functionality (and denying me physical access to the box) the sysadmin can make it impossible (or very difficult) for me to execute code on the system. However, once I can execute code on your Windows box, I can do just about whatever I please. Microsoft is so complacent about their security that they can't let you execute any code remotely yet, with IE and the like it's easy.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Microsoft only stated that Windows 2000 is the most secure operating system Microsoft has ever shipped. No claims about being the most secure OS; just that W2K is the most secure Microsoft OS.
Gotta love that spin...
Criticizing Microsoft is so easy that you should take the time to do it right. :)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
On the other hand, Linux, and all Unices, have "security through a single valuable secret." Once a single key secret (the root password) is known to someone penetrating the system, the entire resources of the system is at that individual's disposal. On a Unix system once a hacker has the command prompt, there isn't a thing s/he can't do. There isn't a single additional layer of security. There's no granularity at all. This isn't necessarily a good thing.
Well, let's see. DOS had no security. It assumed that if you could find the power switch and the keyboard, the data was yours. From there the only way to get less security would be to actively broadcast private data.
I don't doubt that it is more secure that any of their prior OSs. My house is more secure with the doors closed (but unlocked) than with them open. Then it is safe from children too small to turn the doorknob. That doesn't make it secure on an absolute scale. And maybe in all the hype over the holidays I missed the announcement. When did Windows 2000 ship?
I applaud Microsoft for doing a right thing here. Internal review is important.
What was the total uptime on that site?
This would seem to imply that all of the code in which they knew there where security flaws has been rewritten from scratch using new development processes. I doubt that. If not, then we have the old flawed code developed under the old flawed process.
My point here is not that any particular criticism proves that Windows 2000 is insecure. Rather, my assertions that it isn't are as meaningful as those assertions that it is. Neither this spokeswoman nor I have offered any proof. If you want proof of the security of free software, read the source, or better still pay a team of security experts to read the source.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
My NT box is plenty secure. All I had to to was add all the patches, take the network card out, remove the power cable, seal it in an airtight lead box, bury it under my house, and guard it with a gun! Beat that!
I got this sick fanasty, I would like to see openBSD and Linux pited against each other in a Internet "crack this box" contest. Put them up against each other and have all the script kiddies bash and beat the hell out of them. It would be a long and painfull fight, but it is alike a car wreck, for some sick reason I can't look away...
Watch them get tore up and watch them start to bleed from all this script kiddies doing
while (1)
do
ping $linuxbox
ping $openbsdbox
done
It might be fun to throw a couple of Windows 95/98 boxes and maybe an NT box so that the crackers could get the "smell of blood" into there brains. : ) give them a little taste of blood to get them a little crazy before they are turned loose on the Linux and openBSD boxes...
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I would never give 100% support for any OS' security. However, I would tend to agree with most of the reasons on why Linux has a better security model. One thing that will keep Windows 2000 from ever meeting the security of UNIX or Linux is the security holes in applications. Most application developers still work on the basis that one person will be using the software. I can't stand sharing history, cache, etc.. with other users. Word seems to keep some settings global and others are specific to the user. However, I've seen several errors that just should not work that way. Plus, Microsoft seems to dumbify to the point of dangerousness. Filling in password forms for you! Absolutely stupid. Microsoft still has alot of work ahead to change how Windows developers program.
What I want to know is why don't the journalists ask the obvious questions? Instead of just printing the spin, they should follow up with, "But how secure is it compared to non-MS operating systems?" If the spokesman from MS refuses to answer or permit further questions, then the journalsist should say so and go ahead and state the obvious.
Or to be more spiteful, they could say that MS refused to answer the question; which they did by adding the qualifier 'Microsoft has ever shipped'. If this practice became commonplace, people might start answering properly since it would be bad to be perceived as saying 'no comment'.
And this should hold up in court in a libel case.
Marketroid: "But I did answer the question!?!"
Judge: "Sorry, post hoc ergo propter hoc non curat lex."
Oh, I forgot to say 'IANAL".
IANAL
We can't apply the /. moderation system to reality.
I can't just walk up to my boss, ask her about the lan outage and scream '-1 Offtopic! Watch it, Barb, you're approaching Troll" when she complains about her coffee.
I can't get in my nephews face and yell "Flamebait! -1, you're below my threshold now, Nathan" when he starts chanting the childish stuff I often see in first posts.
Well, I can, but I will surely be addressing my next message, unemployed, from the Clinton Valley Mental Rehabilitation Facility.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Microsoft says this is the most secure OS *MICROSOFT* has ever released. Well, DUH.
More people, or organizations, are moving away from the big Windows NT, and to more secure things, such as linux, unix, and Macs. This is similar as when the Army said they were using MacOs instead of WinNT.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but on an NT box, the Administrator account has full control over the system, either immediately or by taking ownership of whatever it needs. And on any other MS OSs, any user has full control over the system, because there is essentially only one user.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
All I can say is my karma has gone up from moderation, not from posted comments since I am usually way late to threads (after the moderators have come through). I think the system is working, or at least a step in the proper direction.
Yes, I realized that. Anyway, there's no "Uninsightful" category. :)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
What do you mean you cant gain root access remotely? Remember getadmin.exe? Of course you can be root remotely. In fact, there are a LOT of useful administration tools that work remotely for domains as root (well, administrator, but that's besides the point).
Microsoft could have put all sorts of nasties in their code for all we know. The ones they've been caught at have been bad enough. We don't know, for instance, that Bill Gates COULDN'T shut down every Windows box in the DOJ if they piss him off badly enough. Hell, if I owned the huge chunk of the desktop market that he does and didn't have to worry about people looking at my source, I'd think like that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
First, Windows 2000 *is* the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever shipped. This is a true statement, because they haven't shipped it yet. (Seen it in stores, lately? Didn't think so...)
Second, NT *might* be C2 secure if set up properly, and not hooked up to a network. Otherwise, all bets are off.
In closing, Windows is horribly insecure and badly designed. A secure NT machine is probably running in VMWare under Linux, with all patches installed for both OSes, not connected to the network, in a locked box, and under 1,000 feet of water. A machine is only as secure as it is configured to be...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
On the other hand, Linux, and all Unices, have "security through a single valuable secret." Once a
single key secret (the root password) is known to someone penetrating the system, the entire resources
of the system is at that individual's disposal. On a Unix system once a hacker has the command prompt,
there isn't a thing s/he can't do. There isn't a single additional layer of security. There's no granularity at
all. This isn't necessarily a good thing.
What if I know the "Administrative" password to an NT domain, and I have physical access to a machine on that domain...same deal, you're toast.
Claiming Windows is more secure (which you didn't, I'm making a point) because it lacks functionality is like saying a Yugo is harder to steal than a Corvette, because when stolen the theif can elude the police better with the Vette.
There's add-ons to each OS, from S-Key to SecurID, to provide that additional layer of security. Personally I'd rather use a UNIX as a framework for this...
Now, really, this isn't meant as flamebait but c'mon, is Open Source really that secure?
You ever notice how many exploits are written for (x86) Linux first with disclaimers on how to adapt them to other OS's/Arch's?
Don't get me wrong, Open Source is great, but keep in mind that the Bad Guys can read that source too, and often do until they find a hole.
Sure you can audit the source yourself, and that's a Good Thing, but how many of us really do that? (how many of us know how?)
Now, in Open Source's favor is the fact the the holes one found are usually patched quickly, but the damage was probably already done.
Just my $.02
Sure some damage is done..this happens with open source AND closed. The big diffrence is that with closed you have to wait on the big slow company that put out the OS to come up with a patch, and wile you wait even more damage gets done. You are 100% at their mercy.
I have to return some videotapes...
is proof enough. Just go to any leet hack0rz website and look. Almsot all of the programs on there are for windows security holes. I'm surprised that Microsoft even have a share in the server market. The company I work for is pretty much 50% as/400 39% RH linux and the rest is nt.(which is slowly being moved over to linux as well) my experiance is proof enough for me that NT should never be used for anything mission critical.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
It is implied in the article that yes, Macrohard did contest that claim:
A Microsoft spokeswoman, however, disputes these perspectives, claiming that Microsoft's closed-source software is more secure than ever.
These perspectives M$ is disputing would be that Linux is more secure than any M$ offering. Now, whether the author was putting a spin that Macrohard didn't mean, I can't say, but do you really think Macrohard didn't want everyone to think that was what they were saying???
Like you say, the Bad Guys can read that source too, and often do until they find a hole, which is true. But this also means that you've got all those exploit writers auditing open source code, looking for any chink in the armor. Once one is found, an exploit is usually published because the crackers are typically looking for recognition in their skill. 8-16 hours later there is usually a fix, and the program is now secure against that attack.
Now lets contrast that with the closed source model of security. No one (in the public) has the source, so it will taker a more skilled cracker to find exploitable bugs. What this translates to is the cracker who finds holes in the system will be more dedicated than the open source cracker. Dedication means that they are less likely to share their new found secret, and the hole is less likely to be patched.
If you don't like the sociological argument, how about the mathmatical one? Assume you have equal numbers of people looking for security holes on a closed source system and an open source system. Since its easier to audit a system that you have the code to (and almost impossible to audit one you don't), even if one cracker doesn't publish a found bug, another will most likely run across it. So you will have more found bugs, but also a higher reported bug/found bug ratio.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Thanks
john
-- john
It'll be a cold day in hell when Microsoft honestly hands over the source of any version of the main line of Windows products (9x, NT). In spite of this, I would agree that Microsoft will open-source something. Just not Windows.
Microsoft did not get where they were by ignoring reality or their competitors. This doesn't mean that they take a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" outlook. It means that they take whatever they feel will be useful to them, and then do whatever they can to kick ass and take names.
Logically, Microsoft's reaction (depending on how current events pan out) will be to claim to suddenly have "invented" the great new concept of opening their source, and then either limit their open-sourcing to trivial products, or find some other lame way to basically remain the same closed-source company they've always been (whilst claiming the opposite).
Actually, right out of the box Linux is definitely not the most secure OS in the world. Software such as OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, etc. are a far better choice when it comes to security. But, Linux is not too bad when it is made to do something very specific, mostly with code shared from other OS's.
I don't understand how any governmental institution could trust their top secrets to an operating system they don't have the source code to. Even countries that are allies spy on each other (US and Israel for example). How can the British government be sure that some code did not lurk in there that could be used to reveal secrets. How can our own government be sure that some spy did not infiltrate M$ and is planting back doors to be used against us.
When lives of soldiers are at stake it is imperitive to be 100% sure.
I think a BSD based system is the best bet for any government. They have the source and are not obligated to share any enhancements they make to the OS.
War is necrophilia.
no its because you don't know what your talking about. A linux server can perform only as well as the admin configures it for. The same is true of pretty much any os..... well other then nt
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
Actually, every operating system is secure right out of the box. (Unless you have a robotic device controlled by an insecure OS nearby, but even so the most it could do is physically hack up the CD.)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Check out LIDS - the Linux Intrusion Detetion System. You can lock everyone (including root) out of doing certain things, like killing certain processes, inserting/removing modules, changing files, modifying firewall rules, and a lot of other stuff. Plus it's a lot easier for people to write stuff like this when the kernel is publicly available.
:). But that's stupidity, which won't ever be preventable. All that can be done is enabling and encouraging intelligence.
BTW, once a cracker has a command prompt on a unix system, that's all they've got. They'll be running as the UID of whatever daemon they comprimised, but they still won't have root (unless the daemon was (stupidly) running as root). Any sysadmin without massive head trauma will not allow a normal user to do root-things. Then again, with some of the setuid root binaries I've seen, I wonder if the head wounds interfere with typing
As for fine tuned granularity, groups work fine for most people, but if they aren't your style, there are Access Control List patches available. Check out this one. It's all about choices.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
This means they cracked the open-source model. Think for a second: do you really think the government would grant approval to something they haven't already cracked and compromised?
I know I'm not the only one who is thinking this, 'cause I sure gots lots of good slashdot friends to back me up on this one. And if you question their logic, they might pour grits down your pants.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I would be more carefull than to simply assume
something is "secure". your machine may be as
secure as you know how to make it, but to think of it as secure
is just tempting fate. security is an ongoing matter,
especially if your machine is actually meant to be doing
something, like handling mail, acting as a web server, etc.
I have faith that next month, or the month after,
or the month after that another remote linux exploit is going to be found.
This exploit quite likely will not be initially posted to bugtraq
and may be exploited in the wild for some time before it is found
and fixed. Apart from that, your security violation
is more likely to be from an employee, than from an outside attacker.
A completely secure machine is a nice idea, but it is not
reality.
(Sorry for the rambling post, this is just a collection of brain farts)
"Hope is the denial of reality, it is the carrot dangled before the draft horse in a vain attempt to reach it" - Raistl
You are putting faith in another party that may have written faulty code, or may have inserted "back door" code without your knowledge. With Open Source, you have the source code in your hands and on your system. You can modify the source to suit your needs and, more importantly, audit the source for back door code and other security compromises.
Granted, it is easier to for the average company or user to trust that Closed Source solutions are secure - or at least that the owner of the source will alert it's users to security breeches and provide timely patches. Auditing source code takes many well-trained man hours (read: is extremely expensive) but for matters of national security, this is a neccessity! Just imagine DoD computers infected with Back Orifice or another remote-control back door and the importance of source-auditing becomes self-evident -- regardless of the OS.
As the stakes get higher in the corporate world, the realization that true security can't be trusted to a Closed Source solution will sink in and Open Source will become the gold standard for securing their boxes.
later,
kristau
They really should have been checking out OpenBSD instead. Linux is nice and all, but when it comes down to solid security, consider OpenBSD. --e!- ---
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Unix _is_ user friendly, it's just particular about who its friends
It just is fairly new, and isn't used as well as it should be.
I'm referring in particular to capabilities support (in the latest kernels) and ACL support (in beta testing on top of ext2; I hope it gets into the final ext3!)
Look at the past. Linux (and every OS out there, but that's beside the point) has its security undermined fairly regularly by buffer overflows, etc. discovered in various daemons and suid programs. Rough estimate, it seems like there's a remote root exploit every year or two, and more than one local root exploit each year.
Yes, the patches come within hours or days of the exploits, and yes, anyone who can type "rpm -F" can keep their system up to date with those patches. But there's still that window of vulnerability out there, and there's still the (millions of?) Linux systems out there without root users experienced enough to stay up to date with security patches.
Security will hopefully be much improved in the future will be the use of capabilities in priviledged Linux programs and ACLs in Linux distributions to drop all unrequired permissions. Right now, if a program just needs to open a trusted (http://www.millenniumproductsllc.com/sjp/
Windows 2000 Powered Off (PO) Edition!!
Now enjoy the usability of Windows and the security of a rock!
All you have to do is 1) put the disk in the computer and 2) turn it off! Its THAT SIMPLE!!
Why use a complex and insecure, let alone cheap, operating system alternative such as Linux when you can have 100% security and incredible usability?
Full system (single user license): $500
Upgrade (single user licesne): $450
:)
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
On the other hand, Linux, and all Unices, have "security through a single valuable secret." Once a
single key secret (the root password) is known to someone penetrating the system, the entire
resources of the system is at that individual's disposal. On a Unix system once a hacker has the
command prompt, there isn't a thing s/he can't do. There isn't a single additional layer of security.
There's no granularity at all. This isn't necessarily a good thing.
Jeeze, settle down a little bit. Did you forget already that the person running the Linux hack-this-box-and-keep-it contest gave out the root password? Also, ever heard of ACL's? And, as someone else pointed out, it's not like NT is any better.
And, actually, now that I'm thinking about it, you could also make a big-ass 'sudo' file, give all root commands out to certain users, and recompile login to not allow root - so the only way anyone could get root access would be by booting into single-user mode.
Shrug, there's a great deal of granularity there - as much as you want, _if you have the source code_.
--
Blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
It just is fairly new, and isn't used as well as it should be.
/etc/shadow to the evil cracker because it'll have wisely dropped it's file access priviledges and switched to a non-priviledged uid immediately upon execution, a feat now possible because it can use the capabilities support to retain the low port opening privileges with the new uid.
I'm referring in particular to capabilities support (in the latest kernels) and ACL support (in beta testing on top of ext2; I hope it gets into the final ext3!)
Look at the past. Linux (and every OS out there, but that's beside the point) has its security undermined fairly regularly by buffer overflows, etc. discovered in various daemons and suid programs. Rough estimate, it seems like there's a remote root exploit every year or two, and more than one local root exploit each year.
Yes, the patches come within hours or days of the exploits, and yes, anyone who can type "rpm -F" can keep their system up to date with those patches. But there's still that window of vulnerability out there, and there's still the (millions of?) Linux systems out there without root users experienced enough to stay up to date with security patches.
Security will hopefully be much improved in the future will be the use of capabilities in priviledged Linux programs and ACLs in Linux distributions to drop all unrequired permissions. Right now, if a program just needs to open a trusted (< 1024) TCP port, or read files with strict permissions, or have raw access to video hardware... then that program gets run as root, with the full array of root permissions.
And then if that program has a security flaw, then anyone in a position to exploit it has root.
With capabilities, a program (or a wrapper program) can be run as root, but can permanently or temporarily drop selected root capabilities. In other words, if a capabilities-aware suid root program just needs to listen at a low port, but it can be tricked by the user into opening arbitrary files... well, then it still won't be able to spit out
Well, that was a mangled description, but you get the idea. There are links to discussions of the subject by people who know what they're talking about at http://www.millenniumproductsllc.com/sjp/
Microsoft did not get where they were by ignoring reality or their competitors. The very look of Windows shows that they saw a threat from Apple or at least innovation from Apple and they responded to it.
With both Brazil and England wanting Open Source operating systems and with the possible results of the current legal actions in the United States it may be in Microsoft's best interest to change their stance.
By fulling opening their operating system they can continue to compete in those markets that are starting to deny them. They can sucessfully deny any legal claims that their software behave in any suspicious or malicious pattern. They can (with the current patent system) clean up at the patent office and sucessfully block competitors from using procedures that appear in thier publicly released code.
In short, they can clean up.
Besides, just picture the following thought in Bill Gates mind: "If my customers have a problem instead of calling tech support they pay their own people to fix it and then I get the fix for free?"
Any bets? Anyone?
No Zen is good zen
ya I here ya there actualy out of the box os/400 is more secure then freebsd :)
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
why havent others said this since it is obviously
:)
true ?
corporatism !?
jon katz write an article about it now
FUD! FUD FUD FUD!
You can very easily lock down a Windows system so that different users can do different things. In fact, access control can be given at incredibly high granularity to:
Mailslots
Named and anonymous pipes
Processes and threads
File-mapping objects
Access tokens
Window-management objects (window stations and desktops)
Registry keys
Local or remote Windows NT services
Local or remote printers
Windows NT network shares
Interprocess synchronization objects (semaphores, events, mutexes, and waitable timers)
Job objects
Each object defines specific and generic access rights. Hmmm... looks like Windows is a lot more secure than you claim.
Also, telnet server and Windows Terminal Server allow you to execute as much code as you care to remotely. WTS is also (in my experience) usually *faster* than an equivalent X-windows session over a 28.8k modem. You probably wouldn't want to run Photoshop on it - but Visual C++ 6.0 runs quite happily on it.
In future, try doing some research before happily spreading the FUD.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I know its just a small slice of the pie...but based on that list what would you want your servers to run? Hint: Li=linux and NT=WindowsNT
I have to return some videotapes...
Doing a distribution isn't probably my cup of tea, but I suppose it could be an interesting project to work on. Or, am I mistaken, and is there already such a project?
Boring us, that it ;)
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Actually, right out of the box Linux is definitely not the most secure OS in the world.
I am sure that the most secure OS in the world is NOT a UNIX or UNIX clone. Any OS with network services is less secure than one with network services.
It also seems that people are making a lot of comments about how secure xyz is compared to Linux that are off-base.
The problem is that Linux is not a monolithic system. There is a Linux distribution that is going through source review much like OpenBSD. This distro is in fact getting to be pretty damn tight. There are modified RedHat distros that are run a few months behind in the dev cycle that are far more secure than RedHat itself because of the simple expedience of code lefe cycle management.
I am sure that some of these are better than most of the OS's that were listed above; it would not surprise me if the day came when some Linux distros are right up there with OpenBSD as far as security.
Slashdot covered it - were you sleeping?
Windows 2000 Goes Gold
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Your comment is true, but it's not even remotely correct for 'all unices'. Take a look at the trusted unices sometime. ACLs and the ability to lock pieces of the system from the administrator aren't Microsoft 'innovations'. IMNSHO, the biggest security problem with NT has nothing to do with it's security model and everything to do with the implementation. I agree, the model itself is conceptually fine. As somebody's .sig notes 'the difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference between theory and reality.'