Re: RE: Linux (in)security

[Cael Abal <lists () onryou com>]

> > Linux is the hands of someone with no interest or regard for security is the
> > same as Windows or any other OS in the hands of the same clueless
> > individual.  The main difference between the Linux and Unix variants (i.e.
> > BSD, Solaris, HP-UX) is that they have already learned their lesson regarded
> > buffer overflows and kernel hardening and allowed the user more control in
> > securing their systems.
>
> This is repeated over and over again, but it is simply not entirely true. It
> may protect against script kiddies, but not against more sophisticated
> crackers. The following URL proves that:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030525190037%2470c6%40gated-at.bofh.it
>
> Both persons in this conversation have a Linux box which:
>
> 1) Has the latest security patches installed and
> 2) Is only running the necessary services.
>
> In other words, boxes that have ``been made secure by their users''.

Hi Peter,

You're investing a significant amount of time into convincing us that
linux boxes sitting on the internet (even when completely up to date and
reasonably locked down) aren't 100% secure.

Rest easy, each and every one of us knows this.

The point raised by others in this thread (which you seem to object to,
although you haven't really responded to) is that linux (operated by a
knowlegable user) is 'stronger' than a similar Microsoft box.

This, you should have realized immediately, is one of those
my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad type arguments which really don't deserve a
response.

Cheers,

Cael


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html