Fjool Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2927/pcmaclinuxmm8.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pooks Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 For those of you running some flavour of Linux (or thinking to) and want some eye candy, try running Beryl. Won't help your productivity one bit but it is still fun to continuously open and close terminal windows just to watch them burn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Quid Pro Quo. You have come full circle on your own questions and answered them yourself. Trout, I have an answer for everything. I have to admit that I did know why there is such a situation with Linux, I was mearly sparking off a debate in the hope that some windows users may start looking for answers and follow a more technologically sound road toward Linux. Connect a standard base install of either operating system onto the net with no protection and wait. Both will be attacked and rooted. Indeed you are correct, but if that is following example you are incredibly silly to do so. It is harder to "root" linux than windows. Just to ask by "root" did you mean discover the system admin password? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 [...]Indeed you are correct, but if that is following example you are incredibly silly to do so. Please expand on this? The only fair comparison of an operating system is it's base install. It is harder to "root" linux than windows. Just to ask by "root" did you mean discover the system admin password? "Root is a privileged account", Linux is "more" secure. Theoretically, yes. However, this is subjective and only partly true. May I refer you back to here where I point out what "security" is all about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Please expand on this?I'm afraid that was a joke, yes be very afraid. "Root is a privileged account", Linux is "more" secure.Theoretically, yes. However, this is subjective and only partly true. What if you never used the super user account whilst online? Only when offline and only when absolutely necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Running a portscan and finding a daemon accepting incoming connections is one of many ways to upload a script to /tmp and wget/curl/lynx any manner of horrors onto a box. From the daemon it is a simple process to cause a stack buffer overflow, and or gain root priviledges through any number of applications ... or you just wait until the users goes su or root. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I agree trout, those are common ways of breaching a system but your example is unrealistic. The fact is that most systems will have security, in the shape of a firewall. etc. Basically nowadays, its a catch 22 situation. Unless the system is not connected to the outside world. Although you have to admit that with hindsight, linux with its modular design is far better suited for defending system critical files etc, compared with window's monolthic design. If someone is determined enough, they could theoretically break any system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I agree trout, those are common ways of breaching a system but your example is unrealistic. The fact is that most systems will have security, in the shape of a firewall. etc. Basically nowadays, its a catch 22 situation. Unless the system is not connected to the outside world. Although you have to admit that with hindsight, linux with its modular design is far better suited for defending system critical files etc, compared with window's monolthic design. If someone is determined enough, they could theoretically break any system. Unrealistic, how? You stated that Linux is "more secure" and I merely point out that without following security protocols and being a competant adminstrator as detailed here any system can be compromised. Just because you have a firewall doesn't make it impossible to get into your system as I detailed in my "unrealistic" example. You answered it yourself by stating "If someone is determined enough, they could theoretically break any system." For you to then state that "The fact is that most systems will have security, in the shape of a firewall. etc." is a given on any operating system, which answers your own point and follows to what I have previously stated! ANY system is insecure unless you follow security protocols and be a vigilant and competant administrator. Yes, *nix based operating systems modularity mean they are inherently more secure than operating systems operating on a monolithic design. That I cannot fault but again that is not the be all and end all of computer security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 You stated that Linux is "more secure" and I merely point out that without following security protocols and being a competant adminstrator as detailed here any system can be compromised.ANY system is insecure unless you follow security protocols and be a vigilant and competant administrator. ahem...Yes, *nix based operating systems modularity mean they are inherently more secure than operating systems operating on a monolithic design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 ahem...Yes, *nix based operating systems modularity mean they are inherently more secure than operating systems operating on a monolithic design. *ahem* right back at ya, and take the whole quote next time! Yes, *nix based operating systems modularity mean they are inherently more secure than operating systems operating on a monolithic design. That I cannot fault but again that is not the be all and end all of computer security. Note I am merely clearing up spurious sweeping generalisations and statements made about the security of Linux against the Windows operating system. A user moving to Linux and not securing their box as they would do with Windows is still leaving themselves open to attack and compromise. Just because you have Linux on your system does not mean that you are high and dry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Trout:*ahem* right back at ya, and take the whole quote next time! Oh sorry:That I cannot fault Wink but again that is not the be all and end all of computer security. I agree it isn't the be all and end all, but it certainly helps. A user moving to Linux and not securing their box as they would do with Windows is still leaving themselves open to attack and compromise. Just because you have Linux on your system does not mean that you are high and dry! I realise that you are not high and dry, however I am just pointing out the fact there is a main difference why Linux is built in a way that theoretically is better for security risks than windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Excellent choice of operating system Sir, if I do say so myself. That and the fact we've managed to come to some form of even plateau ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thankyou I have to say its interesting that no-one here just uses Linux......hhmmmm...probably, as we have discussed because each has its pros and cons. I myself have a mixture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 I have to confess to a silly mistake........was setting up Mandriva 2007 and I did not enter a user name and password.......just root. Shall we day if there was a way in I never found it and in the end decided it was easier to run the installation again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcdilly-Willy Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 JustMe you should have created user accounts from root. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.