What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
53 Comments
- mizzrym, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16and in other news, dead horse is beaten with stick
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14linux really just doesn't need them, however there are some fantastic and highly innovative apps out there which just blow what windows has to offer out of the water, apparmor for example....
- swaggadocio, on 08/20/2008, -3/+11Linux Security: A Big Edge Over Windows
No *****
NEXT! - elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Linux really isn't any less user friendly than Windows. I'd bet that someone who's never used a computer before would find it easier to use Linux than Windows, but I guess that's just my opinion.
It's actually becoming a lot more apparent with the longer release times between versions of windows. I always thought that windows had better hardware integration because they have much more access to 3rd party propriety info. Until recently. I installed a dual boot linux(FC5)/winXP on a gateway laptop (NX260X). Fedora recognized everything but the wireless chipset. I couldn't even install windows due to the SATA drive that required 3rd party drivers even to install. Several USB floppy drives and slipstreamed XP install disks later, I finally get XP installed and none of the freakin hardware is recognized, not the USB hub, not the VGA card, not the NIC, certainly not the wireless chipset. Frankly, I 'd be interested in seeing whether Solaris is an easier install. Really has enlightened me to how "userfriendly" windows currently is. - crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@Brendanc:
Linux really isn't any less user friendly than Windows. I'd bet that someone who's never used a computer before would find it easier to use Linux than Windows, but I guess that's just my opinion.
Also, applying themes is hard to do in Linux? Last time I checked (in GNOME at least) it's a hell of a lot easier than doing it in Windows. - Inaeth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The one thing that should be pointed out, though, is that people should still use firewalls and virus checkers with their Linux systems. I know I do. Just because the chances of my machine becoming infected are remote does not mean that I can't pass a virus on to someone else who is currently using a Windows machine.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16This has actually been known for quite a while. It's good to get some more validation.
Security Report: Windows vs Linux
,----[Executive summary ]
| Finally, we also include a brief overview of relevant conceptual
| differences between Windows and Linux, to offer an insight into why
| Windows tends to be more vulnerable to attacks at both server and desktop,
| and why Linux is inherently more secure
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34978-2003Aug23?language=printer
If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP
,----[ Quote ]
| You can think of Windows XP as a house with a second floor built of
| spackle, wood filler and duct tape.
`----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html?nav=rss_technology
Why Windows is a security nightmare.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120110704.html
The Structural Failures of Windows
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=15305 - crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Are you seriously implying that Windows is more secure than Linux? Because that just isn't true.
- vixenk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ok, enough with the complaints already about Mac and Linux centric articles. In case you haven't noticed, there is a "Mac" and "Linux" section on Digg for those who use and/or care about those operating systems. If a good article comes up, there's a chance it'll be on the main front page due to its popularity in its particular section.
I can understand being sick of the "move to Linux" articles but sheeesh... this is just an article on securing it for people who are already using it. If you don't like the Linux/Mac articles disable those sections in your personal settings, as opposed to complaining every time something from those sections show up on the front page because *you* have them enabled. - elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ DonPMitchell : "Go look at the CERT advisories if you want anything like a quantitative measure of security. It provides no evidence that Linux is superior to Windows."
Let's look at secunia's list. Currently 8% of vulnerabilities are unpatched in Windows Server 2003. O% are unpatched in Redhat AS 4. Well of all those vulns you listed, lets see how significant they are... we wouldn't want to misconstrue something like a critical MS word vulnerability as being the equivalent of a bug that caused Xine to crash. Of all of the MS 2003 bugs. 39% are either "extremely" or "highly critical". Of RH AS4, 25% are "critical" or "highly critical", so try again.
"There are certain things that can be done to "theoretically" increase security, things that architects and developers do before a product is released. The massive code refactoring in Vista is one example. There is a huge scafolding of theorem proving about security relations in the new Microsoft kernel, and it is doubtful that anyone in the Linux dev team has the resources for such efforts."
This sounds like a huge PR circle jerk to me. You can have your marketing drones bust out their protractors and tell me how secure windows is, but the fact of the matter is that OpenBSD has had a much more secure security model with waaay less money than microsoft or linux for that matter. Security has nothing to do with how much money you throw at the problem, it has to do with how high a priority you make it in you core dev team and the choices you make in your OS design.
"Ultimately, security is not achieved by clever deduction. It is achieved by being attacked in new and unexpected ways, developing experience, and redesigning systems to be more bullet-proof. "
No. It's about quality design and writing quality code. Not security through obscurity and PR. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I'm so tired of this old saw. If it were true then why don't LAMP servers suffer more penetrations than IIS servers do? There are only about twice as many of the LAMP servers as there are IIS boxes.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Linux has 60% fewer calories, too!
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh you hate linux. Better practice what you preach and leave digg - you use digg thanks to linux.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actaully penguins are pretty fat, apples are non-fat, and who eats butterflies?
- elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5JeffH :Because malware targets the home user.
Is that why anytime a zero-day Apache or IIS vuln is released, there is a circulating exploit in the wild within hours crippling half the internet? See Code Red or Slapper if you don't know what I'm talking about.
"That was simple."
Yeah 'cause it was wrong. Webservers and backend DBs are the most highly sought-after targets. They're also the most highly audited code. If Apache or IIS exploits were released weekly, you don't think they'd be targeted by malware. Would you rather have my credit card number or all the numbers that Amazon has in their backend DB? - stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4According to Netcraft, more servers run *nix than any other OS. So there are plenty of *nix targets out there for hackers. Why isn't google.com, ebay, amazon, etc, etc brought down by hackers? Unix/Linux is more secure by design.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You are talking about holes in apache, etc. Big deal, from there you must have a local root exploit which is harder. Many servers run chrooted(ie cant get access to the root directory).
Now local root exploit, sure, but those are few and far between.
Windows, OTOH, opens up another dimension in unsecurity. Once you crack that software, the entire system is fair game as you have access to the registry, programs, the entire enchilada. There are holes in linux and os x, but they offer a much better security mechanism. And no 'market share' has NOTHING to do with windows security problems. Windows is its own problem. Name one virus on OS X, linux that have spread. Exactly. Because with a unix virus, you infect executables, except all executables are owned by root.
Good luck exploiting that. - n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's ridiculous.
If the product is unsafe by default, it's the consumers fault it it malfunctions?
This claim would be proposterous for any industry but the software industry. We are so used to software breaking, that even now people are still defending microsoft software. Yes I said microsoft software. Not only their OS is flawed by default, almost all their products, including mission critical products, are flawed.
It's the difference in philosphy behind OS's which make all the other systems more secure. Any *nix OS will say 'I won't do anything untill you specificially tell me to'. Any Windows product will say 'I will do anything and everything, with or without your permission, because you are probably stupid, and this is what we at microsoft call, user-friendly'.
You can compare it to driving a car. Sure you can put a child in an automatic, start the engine for him, and let him ride around. Sooner or later he'll crash. Linux is the car which won't move untill you turn the key, shift gear, etc etc
You can put a child in the Linux car and it will complain that it's broken, or too hard to operate. Then you tell them to get a drivers license or let them figure out what all that fancy gearshifting is for on their own, and sooner or later they'll learn to drive. It may take a while, but at least they won't crash into a tree or worse, run someone over.
That's the bottom line : *nix expects their users to have a clue what they're doing. Windows expects their users to be idiots. - elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Matt2k: "And the last 0-day IIS or Apache vulnerability was when ?
Web hosts are cracked through insecure web scripts, rarely by the underlying server application."
I'd agree with you 100%. I was arguing malware doesn't exclusively target the home user. I'd lump things like PHP vulns in there with core server applications. They are all still audited much more extensively than desktop applications. Less vulns == less malware (for high profile apps). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And with that highly secure UNIX base, Mac, Linux, and any other UNIX are simply more secure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I've heard that argument before and you are DEAD WRONG. You ever use a Unix based system? Try it. You'll understand why its more secure than Winblows.
"Computers are like air conditioners; THey don't work right when you open Windows." - bettermentflux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It doesn't matter how secure Linux, OS X, or Vista are - all of them are only as secure as the weakest link - US!
I'm a "power user" and a Linux advocate, and I'm ashamed to admit how many times I've added an unknown repository to my sources.list, installed an unsigned .deb package or ran a script without scouring the code to see what it does.
Script needs my admin password to install a shiny widget; here ya go!
PGP Signature unable to be verified; don't worry about it - I'm sure the author just forgot. Click, click, click.
Unlike in the Windows world, that trust is less often abused under Linux and my system has never been infected. But I can assure you it won't always be like that.
As Desktop Linux gains momentum, we face one-two punch: we increase our ranks with new users that couldn't parse a bash script even if they wanted to and, at the same time, we become a more inviting target for the bad guys.
Linux is secure. We aren't. - elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ anicejew:: What about Mac OS X? More secure than Windows AND Linux
Um, no. The other BSDs, yes. Certainly pretty to look at though. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@skywake
GNU/Linux and *BSD are superior to windows not because they're less used by end-users who do nothing important what-so-ever, but because their Freedom values have kept them open-source, and because many many mission critical applications run on these operating systems. - sailor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In a nutshell, on a permissions based system, such as linux, things can't just install themselves without asking permission (root access). The system by default is setup with a user account and root account.
The user account is used for the day to day activities and the root account is for situations that require it(installing software and changing configuration .
Further more, if a linux user were to actually install malware or spyware or others it would only affect that users home directory not the rest of the machine. Viri are generally written for Windows machines only, so are much less threat to linux system and still would be less damaging than on a windows machine where the whole machine would be infected.
Most Windows users login with admin rights (unless they have setup a non-admin user for their day to day work).
With admin rights enabled and no permissions system, the entire Windows OS is vunerable to malware, spyware and virus.
Yes a windows machine can setup to be somewhat secure, but it is still more vunerable than a linux machine.
If you haven't used a linux system, you shouldn't make comments about linux... - sailor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I believe the Linux community is fooling itself about security."
You are fooling yourself, and I suspect you have never used linux or haven't used it long enough to know.
WinXP/Fedora Core 6 dualboot, which means I have used and continue to use both, unlike you. - Lungkisser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't personally know if its more secure then Linux (I don't have the experience with Linux to say I do) but I certainly don't have any "security concerns" after switching from Windows XP to Mac OS X. Not that you really had to have any using Windows either as long as you were careful/weren't stupid.
- Marthinus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@brendanc
I am a GNU/Linux user exclusively, but I must agree. As the local "Computer guy" I need to look at computer problems of friends and family and Windows is the perfect OS for them. I can usually help them over the phone e.g. Uninstall the offending application and then reinstall it (usually fixes USB glitches), if that fails I just throw my hands in the air in despair and point them to the local Windows tech. support company. There are lots of them around, much more than Linux.
And that is how I don't waste my precious free time on other people's computer problems while still staying in the good books. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3> Is that why anytime a zero-day Apache or IIS vuln is released,
And the last 0-day IIS or Apache vulnerability was when ?
Web hosts are cracked through insecure web scripts, rarely by the underlying server application. - dcherryholmes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@LinuxGalore:
It's actually even easier than that. You can drag and drop a theme from gnome-look.org into the theme manager window and that starts the installer. That is *much* easier than installing themes in Windows. - LinuxGalore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ try teaching your young brother how to install a new theme on linux
Actually I'm finding themes on Linux easier to install than Windows or OSX, most distro's now have the theme manager in the main menu and if you go to gnome-look.org or kde-look.org there are pre made themes that you can download and install with a single click of the mouse. Also many distributions have themes that can be installed via the graphical package manager. Installing themes in windows can be a total pain as everyone has a different method or the parts dont make the whole so you have multiple zip packages to deal with and all the mallware virus crap that comes with it. OSX themes are just as vague and have to conform to a pile of restrictions that make Vista look totally open. - el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ DonPMitchell
Actually, some of use run Linux to have 100% control over everything in the OS.
You mentioned discovered vulnerabilities in Windows and Linux. Most items in Linux are patched quickly compared to those found in Windows. Of course, we all know that means nothing unless you apply the patches.
But when it comes to security whether you run Windows, Linux, or OS X it doesn't matter if you lock all the doors when you give someone a key. Like say, reading your email as "administrator" in windows, or "root" in linux.
The default user in Windows Vista is still going to be setup with "admin" rights. How many people will go back and change that? As far as I am concern, thats a big hole. But that is not so much as a fault of the OS as it is users not knowing any better. It happens on Linux too. But for an OS with such a large usage rate, you would think they would be more security conscious. In Windows you need admin rights to install activeX controls or flash player. And if they attempt to install a plugin, it may effect the entire windows machine. In Linux, a basic, no admin rights, user can install that stuff. And if its malware...well they only effected their files, not the entire OS. - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4FYI - the absolute quickest way to get yourself buried and/or blocked by a whole lot of digg users is to post a comment at the top of a front page story with a link to an article you submitted.
just so you know. - DonPMitchell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4We have a collection of columnists who don't like Windows. And exactly how much do any of those people know about computer technology? Likely next to nothing. For some, Linux is choses because they simply cannot afford commercial software. For many others, Linux vs. Windows is a political choice. They run Linux as a protest against "big business" or against "closed source" or whatever.
Go look at the CERT advisories if you want anything like a quantitative measure of security. You will find about the same number of advisories against Windows and Linux. Right now I see 82 security advisories issued for "Windows" and 86 for "Linux". That's fairly typical. It provides no evidence that Linux is superior to Windows.
There are certain things that can be done to "theoretically" increase security, things that architects and developers do before a product is released. The massive code refactoring in Vista is one example. There is a huge scafolding of theorem proving about security relations in the new Microsoft kernel, and it is doubtful that anyone in the Linux dev team has the resources for such efforts.
Ultimately, security is not achieved by clever deduction. It is achieved by being attacked in new and unexpected ways, developing experience, and redesigning systems to be more bullet-proof. Windows is constantly running that gauntlet and getting better. Without that process, I believe the Linux community is fooling itself about security. - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, downloading any .exe from a third party site and running it is stupid. Mozilla didn't distribute the Linux.RST.b infected files, this was a third party site that was redistributing them. Always go to the main site to get a download.
Virus scanners are useless. It is trivial to just rewrite virus code to by-pass any hard coded scan for a virus. This can even be automated so that every copy of the virus is different. High profile hacking is done with a hand re-coding of exploits so that your mark is hit with a totally unique exploit that no scanner will ever detect.
Virus scanners are just closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped.
And no, viruses can't spread on a Linux machine. You insanely decide to install a file that someone sent you in an email. You put the file in place as root. The file has a virus in it. You execute the file as a user, the virus can try to infect any file it wants to, but it won't have write access to any executable files anywhere.
With SSELinux the individual executables are limited to what directories and files they have rights to. Even as root they couldn't write to another executable if they wanted to. They just don't have the rights to do so.
This is a much better method than scanning files for viruses.
Until windows gets away from running the main user as admin and letting any program write to any exe then they will be a target of viruses. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course, saying you don't need software misses the real point, that you still need good security practices. It's really half a dozen of one, six of another.
Especially as you want to do more things with your systems. Want to set up a fileserver? Fine, go right ahead. But if you access your fileserver over a wireless network....better think ahead. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"As soon as an attacker gains access to a service or application with root privileges, that doesn't matter. "
I guess either my message wasn't clear or you are unfamiliar with linux vs windows. I have written code for the linux kernel. Windows, 9 times out of 10, has the admin user running every application which means as soon as you get access to the application you have access to the entire OS. With linux, you crack one application and you still have to get to root via an exploit. Then there's SELinux that provids a third level of protection whereby even if they get root they are restricted and cannot get very far. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Name one virus on OS X, linux that have spread. Exactly. Because with a unix virus, you infect executables, except all executables are owned by root."
And? As soon as an attacker gains access to a service or application with root privileges, that doesn't matter. Privilege escalation vulnerabilities are common, as are remote holes in "trusted" services like the RPC portmapper.
I have no idea why you were dugg up. If you have ever worked with Linux (or any other Unix) in an environment beyond your desktop, you've experienced these security issues first-hand. I can see that you haven't, or if you have, you are completely unaware of it. - elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Now local root exploit, sure, but those are few and far between."
They are actually a lot more common than any kind of remote vulnerability. I spent 6 months compiling linux security vulnerabilities from all major vendors for a mailing list, so yes I know.
"Windows, OTOH, opens up another dimension in unsecurity. Once you crack that software, the entire system is fair game as you have access to the registry, programs, the entire enchilada."
Note that this again depends on whether you are running your system with administrative/poweruser privileges. If you run windows as a restricted user, the whole privilege escalation attack against a user is pretty much the same in windows or linux. Of course if you actually need to do anything beyond use the calculator or play minesweeper, you'll need to log out and back on as admin, which makes it virtually useless. Supposedly vista has some kind of sudo-ish feature but we'll see.
"Name one virus on linux that have spread"
Linux.RST.b...if you blindly download cracking tools you are guaranteed to come across a one that's infected. Or if you happen to need a korean Mozilla binary:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/21/1252213&from=rss
/Linux fanboy
//bigger security fanboy - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3There have been huge security issues with many Linux distributions over the years. They *are* often exploited, but rarely to gain entry to someone Joe Schmo's Linux-based desktop. There are far too many people who are new to the Unix game and so completely convinced that Linux is a steel fortress, when this is completely opposite of the truth.
- SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3*Any* OS can be secured. Linux has a better out-of-the-box security model, but if your IT department knows their ass from a hole in the ground their Windows systems will be secure as well.
Windows has a basic problem because it defaults to users being Admins and home users who don't know any better break *****. It's just as stupid to run as root on a *nix box as it is to run as an Admin on a Windows box. If you don't need it *don't do it*. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Linux's security advantage is mostly rooted in the fact that Linux developers are unwilling to compromise over security whereas Microsoft is happy to lower security to improve usability and keep backwards compatibility high. I have no doubt Microsoft is capable of writing secure software but let's face it: A huge chunk of their user base would be unhappy with with complex security systems that required many manual configurations. Microsoft has done an excellent job creating an industry of "it professionals" who simply don't have the skills required to deal with real security. They know what to click on to make things work. Thats it. (there are also some very bright Microsoft professionals out there who apparently are very sadistic considering their career choice) Anyway my point is people knock Microsoft for their insecure software but give a free pass to the consumers who lap it up. They deserve just as much, if not MORE, blame. They don't understand the importance of security and can't be bothered to sit down and lock down their systems. Microsoft is simply giving these people what they want in a way.
- monsieurevil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's ignorant to think that just because an OS had security issues in the past that they can't be overcome. UNIX gave us FTP, Telnet, clear-text passwords, security info written in unencrypted flat files, etc - all hugely insecure. Over the decades these things were replaced or locked down to the point where it was very secure. Decades. Kevin Mitnick went to jail for hacking UNIX, not Windows.
The point is look at the now, not the past. XP SP2, Windows Server 2003, Vista - all are products of tremendous improvements in security. Install IIS 6.0 on a 2003 SP1 machine, then go to Windows Update. There are just 2 security patches. Not because a ton of vulnerabilities are unpatched, but because a concentrated effort was made to write secure code from the ground up. Just like after a long time, people started writing secure UNIX code. - jrippe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Sigh, what's really sad is that OF COURSE it's secure, right now there is no money in writing spyware/adware or viruses on Linux. If it ever becomes the OS used by 90% of the world, trust me, it's going to get hacked all over the place.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a Windows fanboy. I just think people should think about the "why" of spyware/viruses. It's a billion dollar industry now. They're going to find the holes in everything. And if you think Linux doesn't have security problems, you're on e-crack. - brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11What I'd really like to know, not to go off topic, is why this crap keeps coming up on digg. Not that the article itself is crap-- quite the contrary-- it provides more information about the issue... but really, if people who read digg don't already know... well, whatever.
Everyone here knows Windows security is flawed. (and that isn't to say windows sucks outright... I use Mac, Linux (FC6 server) and Windows side by side every day, and I love it.)And I'm all for linux doing that whole desktop thing, but they need to make it easier (could be a bad/good thing) for end users before it can even start catching onto the mainstream.
A few individuals, who incidentally will get modded down, consistently say something along the lines of "linux or OS X is looking good alternatives to me now!!!!!!!!!! windowz sux!!!!". Well, yeah, great. Computer geeks have the luxury of choosing what OS they want to use and, hopefully, knowing the pros and cons of each one (though I'd wager mostly stick to the pros of linux and the cons of windows). However Windows has its pros, and cons (the cons may outweigh the pros depending on how pessimistic you are). So does any version of linux. So does OS X.
To the point though: There needs to be less articles like this, and more articles about choosing which OS is right for you. I'd like to say that linux or bsd is the #1 choice for servers, followed by apple xserve systems, and then Windows Server (but that depends).
For a desktop OS.. thats a tough battle, and I'm afraid that would be between Windows and OS X. Doesn't matter what version of Linux you use-- they simply aren't user friendly if you want to do ANYTHING out of the ordinary (try teaching your young brother how to install a new theme on linux vs. showing him where to click using Shapeshifter on the mac or a theme program on windows).
/rant over - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Dman it! you beat me to it. You diggers are too quick ;)
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Since when is common sense front page news?
Also, Linux has had a bunch of large security flaws over the past years, just nobody bothered to exploit them before they were patched. If Linux had the userbase of Windows, not only would scores more of exploits be found, but exploited to make spyware and viruses. - ngsayjoe, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Hey, not to mentioned the 1000+ Linux distros we can choose from. What a great operating systems.
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/There_are_more_Linux_distros_than_Linux_software
Sad truth .... - ngsayjoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@wstrucke
Ohh, I didn't know that. I was just trying to bring my post to the front-page. It seems that Digg is full of Linux fans and anti-Microsoft haters. I often see articles favors open-source appear on the front page. But there's no way to bring a anti-open source article to the front page. It's really out of my desperation, hehehe. I will stop doing it. - JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Because malware targets the home user.
That was simple. -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is