opening an outbound tcp connection creates an open port on the local machine. It won't accept incoming connections, though.
But ports that are only open in response to the user initiating a connection are not open "by default", are they. Plus, this is just the way things are, technically, and as such not usable as differentiating criteria, wouldn't you agree?
Re:Lots of linux stories on the front page
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
Could you please stop to draw conclusions from a data set of one day? Frankly, it's sickening. Draw up a statistic and I suppose you will see that not every day has 30% linux kernel stories.
Note that beside avahi (which I have forgotten in previous post when I said "no open ports") and dhcp (which has be open if casual users shall have a chance to connect to their ISP in the first place), all those services in Ubuntu just listen to localhost.
Others told you to run nmap, which is always a good idea. But the Ubuntu default is "no open ports".
Re:How To in summary...
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And yet if someone writes an article like this on how to secure Windows (where lets face it the advice, aside from #3 is exactly the same) it's proof that Windows is insecure.
That's because the article fell through a hole in time, and actually belongs in 1997. They are already yelling to give their article back. No self-respecting consumer distro has shipped with open ports in ages.
Open ports and unpatched vulnerabilities?
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
If your Linux distro is out-of-the-box "insecure with open ports and unpatched vulnerabilities", then change distro. If this is not an option, it's time to approach your vendor menacingly, clue bat in hand.
Very. The driver source is open. If you load a proprietary binary module, you (a) taint the kernel (which is not "Linux" anymore), and (b) it's your own decision. The Ubuntu "restricted drivers manager" (don't know about other distros) even tells you that there are security issues.
You may have noticed that I listed more things than decent living conditions, such as political participation. I should have added "some sense in life besides making money and fucking your fellow man over". Yeah, what you describe happens if a society is corrupt to the bone.
Duh. The police won't be able to man each and every cash checking place. So some of the crime will move of to those places with no additional surveillance. Should it turn out that cash checking crime has become virtually impossible, crime will find other forms of making money, just as it will when cash checking goes out of fashion.
My point is, as I made clear, that the way to prevent crime is to prevent criminals. Like in any other endeavor. If you are responsible for an industrial production line, the way to handle quality problems is to find their causes the source, not to check the final product and throuw out the bad ones.
What Utopian countries are you referring to that don't have crime?
You might be surprised, but the world is not black and white. There are countries with less, and countries with more crime. For an example, compare the total homicide numbers here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Crime is best prevented by the fear of getting caught and punished
Says who? AFAICT, crime is best prevented by some minimum amount of personal freedom, reasonable living conditions regarding food, shelter, and education for all, along with some participation in matters of society.
Slashdot Mirror
You could educate yourself a bit, maybe by reading the postings that came before yours. (set threshold to +1)
As long as the complaint is about that particular day, and not general :)
opening an outbound tcp connection creates an open port on the local machine. It won't accept incoming connections, though.
But ports that are only open in response to the user initiating a connection are not open "by default", are they. Plus, this is just the way things are, technically, and as such not usable as differentiating criteria, wouldn't you agree?
Could you please stop to draw conclusions from a data set of one day? Frankly, it's sickening. Draw up a statistic and I suppose you will see that not every day has 30% linux kernel stories.
Note that beside avahi (which I have forgotten in previous post when I said "no open ports") and dhcp (which has be open if casual users shall have a chance to connect to their ISP in the first place), all those services in Ubuntu just listen to localhost.
Its a computer connected to "Teh Intarweb" - its supposed to have open ports.
Not if it just acts as a client, as most "consumer" machines do.
Well, I think for many (most?) people, it's one of the reasons to be here. The quality of the stories is another matter ...
Um, I see you have a 20-digit UID or something, but how can you be surprised that /. is generally pro-FOSS, pro-Linux???
Others told you to run nmap, which is always a good idea. But the Ubuntu default is "no open ports".
And yet if someone writes an article like this on how to secure Windows (where lets face it the advice, aside from #3 is exactly the same) it's proof that Windows is insecure.
That's because the article fell through a hole in time, and actually belongs in 1997. They are already yelling to give their article back. No self-respecting consumer distro has shipped with open ports in ages.
If your Linux distro is out-of-the-box "insecure with open ports and unpatched vulnerabilities", then change distro. If this is not an option, it's time to approach your vendor menacingly, clue bat in hand.
You are free to dig up data for other crimes yourself. I predict that the number of assaults per 100,000 people is bigger in the US.
how different are other OSes like Linux
Very. The driver source is open. If you load a proprietary binary module, you (a) taint the kernel (which is not "Linux" anymore), and (b) it's your own decision. The Ubuntu "restricted drivers manager" (don't know about other distros) even tells you that there are security issues.
There was good in Sauron?
Read the Silmarillion.
Compare: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
You may have noticed that I listed more things than decent living conditions, such as political participation. I should have added "some sense in life besides making money and fucking your fellow man over". Yeah, what you describe happens if a society is corrupt to the bone.
Do you know the concepts of "more" and "less"?
Duh. The police won't be able to man each and every cash checking place. So some of the crime will move of to those places with no additional surveillance. Should it turn out that cash checking crime has become virtually impossible, crime will find other forms of making money, just as it will when cash checking goes out of fashion.
My point is, as I made clear, that the way to prevent crime is to prevent criminals. Like in any other endeavor. If you are responsible for an industrial production line, the way to handle quality problems is to find their causes the source, not to check the final product and throuw out the bad ones.
What Utopian countries are you referring to that don't have crime?
You might be surprised, but the world is not black and white. There are countries with less, and countries with more crime. For an example, compare the total homicide numbers here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Having cops be at places where crime is likely is a good deterrent to crime.
No, it's useless as I said, since the crime will move elsewhere, just like teenagers that hang out in a mall.
Well, not ever country is the dangerous place the US has let itself become, despite the best economical chances.
Offshore, if we're lucky.
Right, your friendly neighborhood drug addict will relocate to Sweden.
Crime is best prevented by the fear of getting caught and punished
Says who? AFAICT, crime is best prevented by some minimum amount of personal freedom, reasonable living conditions regarding food, shelter, and education for all, along with some participation in matters of society.
... crime is in the process of relocating, and we are back to square one.