Linux (and OSX) Security by Obscurity is a Myth
Brainfried Sysadmin
article to another similar article.
They're starting to get it. It's just built more secure. Duh!
Rage against the FUD machine!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGUE-EMAIL.html
FROM THE DESK OF DAVID POGUE
How Susceptible Is Your Operating System to Viruses?
I've just discovered the best way to learn about computers: Write down
what you know in an e-mail column and send it to 237,000 people. Believe
me: Whatever holes they discover in your knowledge, they'll set you
straight.
Last week, for example, I mentioned that an anti-virus program is a
necessity these days if you use Windows. I grumbled that that meant
forking over money (plus an annual subscription) to companies like McAfee
and Symantec, two companies that are not known for, ahem, customer-support
excellence.
But dozens of you called to my attention a number of free anti-virus
programs from other companies. "I have been using the version of AVG
(www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php) that's free for personal use,"
wrote one reader. “It has stopped all viruses without fault. And Grisoft
has never sent me a single junk mail or distributed my information—a
refreshing thought indeed.”
I tried AVG, and it’s great. (Other readers recommended free and cheap
anti-virus programs like Avast, www.avast.com; F-prot, www.f-prot.com;
Sophos, www.sophos.com; and NOD32 Anti-Virus, www.nod32.ie.)
I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because they offer
virus writers a much smaller “audience” than Windows -- a notion
that’s been much repeated in the press, most recently last week’s
BusinessWeek cover story. That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who
repeats it. There’s a much bigger reason virus writers don’t like Mac
OS X and Linux.
“Unix [which underlies Mac OS X] and Linux ARE more secure,” wrote one
reader. “They have been developed, open-source style, by people who know
exactly what they are doing. Unix and Linux have had at least 10 years of
battling hackers to better themselves. This leads to an extremely secure
environment.”
Many of you also pointed out simple design decisions that make Mac OS X
and Linux much more secure than Windows XP. For example:
* Windows comes with five of its ports open; Mac OS X comes with all of
them shut and locked. (Ports are back-door channels to the Internet: one
for instant-messaging, one for Windows XP’s remote-control feature, and
so on.) These ports are precisely what permitted viruses like Blaster to
infiltrate millions of PC’s. Microsoft says that it won’t have an
opportunity to close these ports until the next version of Windows, which
is a couple of years away.
* When a program tries to install itself in Mac OS X or Linux, a dialog
box interrupts your work and asks you permission for that installation --
in fact, requires your account password. Windows XP goes ahead and
installs it, potentially without your awareness.
* Administrator accounts in Windows (and therefore viruses that exploit
it) have access to all areas of the operating system. In Mac OS X, even an
administrator can’t touch the files that drive the operating system
itself. A Mac OS X virus (if there were such a thing) could theoretically
wipe out all of your files, but wouldn’t be able to access anyone
else’s stuff -- and couldn’t touch the operating system itself.
* No Macintosh e-mail program automatically runs scripts that come
attached to incoming messages, as Microsoft Outlook does.
Evidently, I’m not the only columnist to have fallen for this old myth;
see
www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column
for another writer’s more technical apology. But the conclusion is
clear: Linux and Mac OS X aren’t just more secure because fewer people
use them. They’re also much harder to crack right out of the box.
Mark
Thanks for the post.
Yeah AVG and f-prot are good.
>Linux and Mac OS X aren’t just more secure because fewer people
> use them. They’re also much harder to crack right out of the box.
Add OS/2 and eComstation(a "distibution" of OS/2) to the mix as well.
--
On my Win 98 box.
Why? Because I like bug catching.
Or maybe because I love OSS!
Liam Slider
<snip>
>
> Add OS/2 and eComstation(a "distibution" of OS/2) to the mix as well.
Does OS/2 even have *nix style user accounts, restrictions, and file
permissions, you know, most of the protection against said viruses? I
thought it was more Windows-like in that department.
--
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." -
Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
The Ghost In The Machine
<n...@way.com>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:16:40 GMT
<pan.2003.09.19....@way.com>:
10?
I'm not entirely sure but I suspect at least 20, possibly 30 years
here, although it's hard to tell when viruses started to swirl
around Unix systems, looking for a way in.
At least 15, since the Mitnick worm was around 1987 IIRC.
And will hopefully continue to be so. One of the joys of Linux is
not having to worry about whether the latest nasty will get into
the network and wreak havoc; I've already got a down box at work because
IT can't seem to install the viruschecker we use here (neither they
nor I have a clue; the Windows method is of course to reinstall the
OS from scratch, which is what they may end up doing -- although if
I can I'll get Linux on there first :-) ).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Tom Shelton
> Mark wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Add OS/2 and eComstation(a "distibution" of OS/2) to the mix as well.
>
> Does OS/2 even have *nix style user accounts, restrictions, and file
> permissions, you know, most of the protection against said viruses? I
> thought it was more Windows-like in that department.
>
>
Windows NT systems have all of the above - just because they are not used
properly, doesn't mean they don't exist... You must be thinking of Win9x.
Tom Shelton
Duke Robillard
>>“Unix [which underlies Mac OS X] and Linux ARE more secure,” wrote one
>>reader. “They have been developed, open-source style, by people who know
>>exactly what they are doing. Unix and Linux have had at least 10 years of
>>battling hackers to better themselves. This leads to an extremely secure
>>environment.”
>
>
> 10?
>
> I'm not entirely sure but I suspect at least 20, possibly 30 years
> here, although it's hard to tell when viruses started to swirl
> around Unix systems, looking for a way in.
>
> At least 15, since the Mitnick worm was around 1987 IIRC.
I suspect you mean the Morris worm, which was 1988:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/morris-worm.html
The idea that this same technique works today is appalling.
Duke
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:00:16 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> At least 15, since the Mitnick worm was around 1987 IIRC.
>
you mean the Morris worm, right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/a1hzd90bcYOAWPYRAhgsAKCnM2Ds5YAQVUXEIawbugUIUguXtQCg0xfG
pKZ/r27ZT5Rx22ghXtC+/b8=
=lqfH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
ray
Security by obscurity still works.
Peter
>
>Security by obscurity still works.
>
And a savvy Linux user has lots of opportunities to add non-standard
security and booby traps to a Linux system.
.
Ilari Liusvaara
<3f6ba1e7...@news.paradise.net.nz>. Dumping datagram.
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:38:30 -0600, ray <pdq...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> And a savvy Linux user has lots of opportunities to add non-standard
> security and booby traps to a Linux system.
Not necressarily non-standard. Newest versions of Linux have the SELinux
code included. :-)
Now if somebody would make SE X...
-Ilari
--
Yep, half a frog in blender is better than no frog. -- Daniel Phillips
Linux LK_Perkele_IV9 2.4.22-rc3 #2 Sun Aug 24 14:36:19 EEST 2003 i686 unknown
10:35am up 5 days, 22:34, 14 users, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.08
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:20 AM, Liam Slider <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> said:
>Does OS/2 even have *nix style user accounts, restrictions, and file
>permissions, you know, most of the protection against said viruses?
It's optional, and it's ACL based rather than having user/group/world
permission bits.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do
not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
The Ghost In The Machine
<du...@io.com>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:32:34 -0400
<D0mdnVszjJX...@io.com>:
Whoops...right. :-) Of course, there are many easier methods
of playing "propagate-the-malware" nowadays, thanks to
Microsoft. :-/ (And the enterprising crackers out there
exploiting the holes, who are the real bandits. Of course,
it would help if Windows were more of a challenge, perhaps...?
At least we'd get more interesting viruses. And the quoted
website suggests Morris was also a victim of his own success,
as his virus malfunctioned. What color *was* his hat? :-) )
>
> Duke