Fine then, let's sit in the dust and keep using crappy window managers on top of pseudo-desktop hacks, as Microsoft's next version of Windows, Longhorn, comes out with its fully DirectX-accelerated desktop.
Why are so many Linux users afraid of change? Let's progress forward, please.
I'm curious, was Slashdot afraid to put "Linux Most Breached Server?" in the headline? The stats were about most breached. The point wasn't who was most attacked. I guess that one word needed to be changed to soften the blow...
I think it's more that anything Linux-critical is suspect around here. Well, gee, Rob Rosenburger criticized them, that means their stats are wrong.
But if it were a study by mi2g showing Windows had the most breaches, you wouldn't have even posted that. You would have joined the chorus of zealots in saying "I told you so."
Anybody can into Windows, but it takes a real hacker to get into Linux.
How so?
Hell, look at my sig. Or better yet, read the Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick. No system is secure.
Seriously, I suspect that difference comes into play when you look at where the servers are used. You'll find that Linux is used in more servers that are much more worthwhile targets (ie credit card transaction processing) than Windows. So going back to the original comment, not only is it less of a challenge to break into Windows, but I suspect that there is also less reason to want to attempt to break into Windows servers.
Honestly, it sounds like you're making excuses. People have been hooting and hollering about how Windows is so bad and crappy and gets breached constantly. And here comes a study showing Linux gets more breached!
Yes, Virginia, no system is the holy grail of security, especially not Linux. Your admin is your security.
Because, after all, it's critical of Linux, so it just can't be true. This is Slashdot, where only Windows is the True Evil and every Linux is perfect and holy in every way.
This isn't the first report to state this, incidentally. I've submitted at least two stories from two other companies in the past couple of months, both rejected. I'm glad Slashdot had the balls to post this, considering how rejected it would inevitably be by the zealots in here who are religious about an OS.
I would guess that most Linux machines that get hacked are due to unpatched/deliberately insecure configurations - like using a dictionary word for a root password.
Or, you could read my sig and realize everything from stupid buffer exploits to kernel vulnerabilities are a real and true thing.
Stop with the "we KNOW Windows is inherently insecure, lololol!" mentality. All are equal. It's up to the moron running the server to make sure people don't get in, and Windows is just as secure as any other OS when properly configured.
You're right. You admittedly have no security expertise, but instead of Linux/Apache being more breached, it's really all a big marketing conspiracy to sell reports (as do most all security groups).
Just give in and accept it already. Linux is not the holy grail of security as it has been touted since the days of Windows 98. The rest of the world has moved on to bigger and better things (i.e., BSD, Windows Server 2003, etc.), but the zealot community is still stuck in the "EVERYTHING M$ IS FULL OF HOLEZ" mentality.
So let me get this right. Since third party applications under Linux get hacked, it is attributed to Linux being more vulnerable while MS Windows running third party software is more secure??? So a PHP/SQL injection exploit is attributed to the OS PHP is installed on? Does the exploit count twice then? - Once for each operating system?
I don't know why people get so hung up on this. There is such a thing as slang. When people refer to Windows, running Windows, or whatever, that can mean running Windows, the third-party applications on it, etc.
Referring to Linux refers to its standard third-party applications and such as well. The entire operating system and userspace. Would you rather people only ever referred to Linux when discussing bzImage?
Linux has gained enough acceptance in the server field to be deployed in large numbers and at high-visibility targets. Additionally, the level of competence of the people deploying Linux is probably dropping somewhat, as it's moving from something that is just installed by those who love it and are willing to take the time to monitor all of the security flaws to something that is installed by people who just want something that works.
Funny. Replace every instance of "Linux" with "Windows NT," and you have the mid-90s.
Kinda of changes your perspective when you're on the other side of things, doesn't it?
Wow. Nice way to try to twist this report against Windows in some way. Clearly, you are frustrated at this report's conclusion.
The point of the report was to show that Linux gets more security breaches, more often. Many are pointing to Apache's wider usage as the reason.
You say Windows is "MAJORLY vunerable" in response to an article that just said Linux is the most breached. Jesus. Some of you have one-track minds. Windows, Windows, Windows.
Good admins make secure servers, not an operating system, despite what the zealots would have us believe.
Finally, a rational voice. The Slashdot community is way too reactive toward Microsoft. They should be busy securing their servers instead of writing more "M$" junk on Slashdot!
And yet where is that argument from you people when you talk about the insecurity of Windows? People like me have been saying all along that something more widely used will be more attacked and exploited, and Windows is no exception. All of you blasted back with the higher Apache statistics, but it looks like this report just supports what I was saying in the first place.
Also, are people still going to keep claiming Windows servers are inherently less secure? This report directly contradicts that. Looks like the only thing you can argue is that Apache is used more, but at the same time it's getting more breached. Tough.
Would you rather have three Microsoft articles a day all dealing with some varation on "LOOK ITS ANOTHER HOLE IN MICROSOFT LOLOLOL!!11"
Yet, when it's an article that dares suggest Linux is not the holy grail, it's a "slow/. day." The double-standards are very amusing to me.
I applaud Slashdot for even posting this. I've submitted TONS of stories in the past that were studies and reports about Windows and Linux security, all rejected.
So, it looks like all those times I said give Linux a bigger marketshare than Windows and see what happens as far as security breaches, and people blasting back with the higher Apache statistics and yet claiming Windows was more breached as some sort of comeback, are left in the dust.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well.
I post often about how Linux is no less insecure than Windows or any other OS. And constantly, I get bashed, downmodded, told that there are more Linux servers but are less hacked, etc.
And yet here is a study that shows otherwise. Now look at all those people try to dismiss it. Try to dance around it, making excuses, and so on. If this study had shown that Windows was the most breached, people would take it at face value and we'd have the requisite hundreds of "I told you so" posts, heresay, anecdotes from idiots who don't patch their servers, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to say, I told you so. All operating systems are as secure as their admins. Microsoft has millions of dollars and some of the top programmers in the world. They're damn secure. So is Linux. So are all the others, reasonably speaking. Linux is not the end-all of secure systems, and this just makes people who act that way look like idiots (especially when they're making ridiculous excuses to try to diffuse the study).
I know many admins who are not worth two cents and I know others who are so swamped with tasks that they don't have time to patch much less check logs on a regular basis.
When it's Linux, it's suddenly a bad admin.
When there's an attachment virus like SoBig caused by user stupidity, or an exploit patched two months ago, it's suddenly a "Windows worm."
If the conclusion of the study had been that Windows was the one more breached, I doubt you'd be quibbling. In fact, we'd see the mandatory hundreds of posts all talking about how Microsoft should be held liable, how bad Windows security is, how great Linux is, etc.
I dare anyone to challenge that assumption.
Yes, kids, Linux is no more secure than any other OS, except maybe OpenBSD.:)
I get modded down when I post things like that. People are so used to the convenience of downloading that they've justified it in their minds. It's become an anti-RIAA movement, or a "everything should be free" movement, and so on and so forth.
These are issues designed to cover up the fact that it is still illegal and immoral to throw people's work online so others can get it for free. P2P is also used to pirate software, movies, and other forms of work. But the issue always focuses on MP3s because the RIAA is an easy and convenient bad guy, a stepping stone to turn it into some moral anti-evil-corporation mission. Is it also "free marketing" to share software? Movies? All the others things that are shared right alongside MP3s?
And of course, the most important reason that people seem to always forget is that you're acquiring artists' music with compensating them, which is legally and morally wrong. I challenge anyone to explain otherwise.
99.9% of p2p is piracy, plain and simple. Stop trying to distract the issue. Of course you can upload your own material. That's not what he's referring to.
Slashdot Mirror
Get on it.
When do you expect to release an alpha? I'll be happy to test it.
I'm not programming a single thing.
I'm not a programmer.
Fine then, let's sit in the dust and keep using crappy window managers on top of pseudo-desktop hacks, as Microsoft's next version of Windows, Longhorn, comes out with its fully DirectX-accelerated desktop.
Why are so many Linux users afraid of change? Let's progress forward, please.
What next? Back doors so advertizers can see where we surf?
Why do you automatically assume there's something "next?" It's a tactic of the paranoid.
Relax. Ads during install are nothing.
I'm curious, was Slashdot afraid to put "Linux Most Breached Server?" in the headline? The stats were about most breached. The point wasn't who was most attacked. I guess that one word needed to be changed to soften the blow...
I think it's more that anything Linux-critical is suspect around here. Well, gee, Rob Rosenburger criticized them, that means their stats are wrong.
But if it were a study by mi2g showing Windows had the most breaches, you wouldn't have even posted that. You would have joined the chorus of zealots in saying "I told you so."
Anybody can into Windows, but it takes a real hacker to get into Linux.
How so?
Hell, look at my sig. Or better yet, read the Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick. No system is secure.
Seriously, I suspect that difference comes into play when you look at where the servers are used. You'll find that Linux is used in more servers that are much more worthwhile targets (ie credit card transaction processing) than Windows. So going back to the original comment, not only is it less of a challenge to break into Windows, but I suspect that there is also less reason to want to attempt to break into Windows servers.
Honestly, it sounds like you're making excuses. People have been hooting and hollering about how Windows is so bad and crappy and gets breached constantly. And here comes a study showing Linux gets more breached!
Yes, Virginia, no system is the holy grail of security, especially not Linux. Your admin is your security.
Because, after all, it's critical of Linux, so it just can't be true. This is Slashdot, where only Windows is the True Evil and every Linux is perfect and holy in every way.
This isn't the first report to state this, incidentally. I've submitted at least two stories from two other companies in the past couple of months, both rejected. I'm glad Slashdot had the balls to post this, considering how rejected it would inevitably be by the zealots in here who are religious about an OS.
After all, it's critical of Linux.
If it were critical of Windows, I doubt you'd have even posted that.
I would guess that most Linux machines that get hacked are due to unpatched/deliberately insecure configurations - like using a dictionary word for a root password.
Or, you could read my sig and realize everything from stupid buffer exploits to kernel vulnerabilities are a real and true thing.
Stop with the "we KNOW Windows is inherently insecure, lololol!" mentality. All are equal. It's up to the moron running the server to make sure people don't get in, and Windows is just as secure as any other OS when properly configured.
You're right. You admittedly have no security expertise, but instead of Linux/Apache being more breached, it's really all a big marketing conspiracy to sell reports (as do most all security groups).
Just give in and accept it already. Linux is not the holy grail of security as it has been touted since the days of Windows 98. The rest of the world has moved on to bigger and better things (i.e., BSD, Windows Server 2003, etc.), but the zealot community is still stuck in the "EVERYTHING M$ IS FULL OF HOLEZ" mentality.
So let me get this right. Since third party applications under Linux get hacked, it is attributed to Linux being more vulnerable while MS Windows running third party software is more secure??? So a PHP/SQL injection exploit is attributed to the OS PHP is installed on? Does the exploit count twice then? - Once for each operating system?
I don't know why people get so hung up on this. There is such a thing as slang. When people refer to Windows, running Windows, or whatever, that can mean running Windows, the third-party applications on it, etc.
Referring to Linux refers to its standard third-party applications and such as well. The entire operating system and userspace. Would you rather people only ever referred to Linux when discussing bzImage?
Linux has gained enough acceptance in the server field to be deployed in large numbers and at high-visibility targets. Additionally, the level of competence of the people deploying Linux is probably dropping somewhat, as it's moving from something that is just installed by those who love it and are willing to take the time to monitor all of the security flaws to something that is installed by people who just want something that works.
Funny. Replace every instance of "Linux" with "Windows NT," and you have the mid-90s.
Kinda of changes your perspective when you're on the other side of things, doesn't it?
Wow. Nice way to try to twist this report against Windows in some way. Clearly, you are frustrated at this report's conclusion.
The point of the report was to show that Linux gets more security breaches, more often. Many are pointing to Apache's wider usage as the reason.
You say Windows is "MAJORLY vunerable" in response to an article that just said Linux is the most breached. Jesus. Some of you have one-track minds. Windows, Windows, Windows.
Good admins make secure servers, not an operating system, despite what the zealots would have us believe.
Finally, a rational voice. The Slashdot community is way too reactive toward Microsoft. They should be busy securing their servers instead of writing more "M$" junk on Slashdot!
And yet where is that argument from you people when you talk about the insecurity of Windows? People like me have been saying all along that something more widely used will be more attacked and exploited, and Windows is no exception. All of you blasted back with the higher Apache statistics, but it looks like this report just supports what I was saying in the first place.
Also, are people still going to keep claiming Windows servers are inherently less secure? This report directly contradicts that. Looks like the only thing you can argue is that Apache is used more, but at the same time it's getting more breached. Tough.
Uhm... slow /. day?
/. day." The double-standards are very amusing to me.
Would you rather have three Microsoft articles a day all dealing with some varation on "LOOK ITS ANOTHER HOLE IN MICROSOFT LOLOLOL!!11"
Yet, when it's an article that dares suggest Linux is not the holy grail, it's a "slow
I applaud Slashdot for even posting this. I've submitted TONS of stories in the past that were studies and reports about Windows and Linux security, all rejected.
So, it looks like all those times I said give Linux a bigger marketshare than Windows and see what happens as far as security breaches, and people blasting back with the higher Apache statistics and yet claiming Windows was more breached as some sort of comeback, are left in the dust.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well.
I post often about how Linux is no less insecure than Windows or any other OS. And constantly, I get bashed, downmodded, told that there are more Linux servers but are less hacked, etc.
And yet here is a study that shows otherwise. Now look at all those people try to dismiss it. Try to dance around it, making excuses, and so on. If this study had shown that Windows was the most breached, people would take it at face value and we'd have the requisite hundreds of "I told you so" posts, heresay, anecdotes from idiots who don't patch their servers, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to say, I told you so. All operating systems are as secure as their admins. Microsoft has millions of dollars and some of the top programmers in the world. They're damn secure. So is Linux. So are all the others, reasonably speaking. Linux is not the end-all of secure systems, and this just makes people who act that way look like idiots (especially when they're making ridiculous excuses to try to diffuse the study).
I know many admins who are not worth two cents and I know others who are so swamped with tasks that they don't have time to patch much less check logs on a regular basis.
When it's Linux, it's suddenly a bad admin.
When there's an attachment virus like SoBig caused by user stupidity, or an exploit patched two months ago, it's suddenly a "Windows worm."
If the conclusion of the study had been that Windows was the one more breached, I doubt you'd be quibbling. In fact, we'd see the mandatory hundreds of posts all talking about how Microsoft should be held liable, how bad Windows security is, how great Linux is, etc.
:)
I dare anyone to challenge that assumption.
Yes, kids, Linux is no more secure than any other OS, except maybe OpenBSD.
Only after idiot users run the attachment.
Amen.
I get modded down when I post things like that. People are so used to the convenience of downloading that they've justified it in their minds. It's become an anti-RIAA movement, or a "everything should be free" movement, and so on and so forth.
These are issues designed to cover up the fact that it is still illegal and immoral to throw people's work online so others can get it for free. P2P is also used to pirate software, movies, and other forms of work. But the issue always focuses on MP3s because the RIAA is an easy and convenient bad guy, a stepping stone to turn it into some moral anti-evil-corporation mission. Is it also "free marketing" to share software? Movies? All the others things that are shared right alongside MP3s?
It's pitiful.
And of course, the most important reason that people seem to always forget is that you're acquiring artists' music with compensating them, which is legally and morally wrong. I challenge anyone to explain otherwise.
Oh, please.
99.9% of p2p is piracy, plain and simple. Stop trying to distract the issue. Of course you can upload your own material. That's not what he's referring to.
Let's start with the McDonald's coffee case, shall we. Rather than propagate popular myth about the case, why don't you first check here.
I'm sorry, but any idiot who holds hot steaming coffee with their knees is asking for it to spill. It's silly.