Re: Linux (in)security (Was: Re: Re: No Subject)

["Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Peter Busser wrote:

> Because Linux people in general seem to be more concerned about speed and
> features than about security. For example, the only reason Linux Security
> Modules (LSM) have been included in the kernel, is that they don't have a
> performance impact on users who do not load any security modules. People have
        ...
> In general people seem to believe that Linux is either secure or can be made
> secure by removing packages and unused services. This believe that Linus is
> already secure makes people uninterested in security. Why improve something
        ...
> People apparently do not realise that a wooden house is not sufficient to
> protect against the big bad wolf. And there is currently no brick house to flee
> to when the wolf comes...

OK.  No quibble from me about the absolute security of any particular
operating system.  But arguments like "linux viruses are possible" or
"NetBSD has security flaws, too" don't address real questions, and they
approach being vacuous truisms.

The real questions go something like:

"Source code for Unix viruses has been available for years, from sources
almost too numerous to mention.  Why haven't Unix viruses become epidemic
the way that Windows viruses have?"

"Security problems of the same magnitude as .ida buffer overflows, or
MSRPC buffer overflows exist in unix programs like Sendmail and others.
Why hasn't a worm materialized for this problem?"

"The scalper worm didn't effect nearly as many hosts as msblast did.
Why not?  Why did the scalper worm seem to die out, yet wormwatch.org
still records many hits from much older worms like SQLSpida and Nimda?"

And I guess you can generalize and ask why the Windows "culture" generates
so many problems of such a magnitude, that last so long?  My home office
web server got a Code Red hit on Sept 19th 2003, for example.  Other computing
cultures (Unix, Mac, etc) don't seem to exhibit this.  Why not?  Shouldn't
we focus our efforts on figuring out what aspects of Linux or Mac cultures
keep epidemics from occuring?  It's certainly a waste of breath to point out
that OS X has horrendous security flaws when none of them turn into grotesque
epidemics like Sobig.f.

To extend your "wooden house" analogy a bit:
In a city made entirely of wooden houses, a single house fire is way more
likely to level the city than a in a city where a mix of wooden, brick
and vinly-sided houses.  Having the occasional brick house mixed in with
the wooden houses provides a lot of resistance to a whole-city conflagration.
It doesn't provide absolute immunity from fires for every house in the
city.

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