another reason to use adblock and noscript... or just use Linux

[Tom Buskey]

I've always hated the "It's the most widely used, so it's the most widely
targeted and most widely compromised" argument.  Most of the time I see it
expoused by clueless journalists and Windows apologists making excuses for
all the security issues Windows has had.  But, there is a small (small!)
germ of truth to it as well.


On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Jeffry Smith <jsmith at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   Linux is NOT more secure then Windows.  People RUNNING Linux are
> > *generally* more security conscious then a person running Windows.
> >
> > --
> > -- Thomas
> >
>
> Apache (OK, not Linux, but illustrative).  Back a number of years ago,
> IIS was routinely compromised.  Yet Apache had 2/3's of the installed
> base for web servers.  If it was strictly numbers, apache would have.

been the most cracked /  attacked.  Why the difference?  I don't know,
>

Thank you for reminding me of one of the best repudiations of the "most
popular gets compromised most" theory.

On a similar note, why haven't the stock markets been attacked?  That's
where the real $$ is.  Someone breaking in might be able to manipulate some
of the data and make some real money.  None of them are run on Windows.  I
don't think that's a good argument for security one way or another either.

I think Unix and other multi user OSen have a more secure mindset.  You
share the  system with others and don't run as a privileged user.
Developers write programs aware of this model.  Well, unless they run as
root all the time anyways.  Web servers used to.

DOS and later Windows was a single user system.  The user has full control
and doesn't have to share it.  So developers have that mindset.  MacOS 9 and
earlier were like this too.  There are lots of backdoors still out there.

It's just another layer for the cracker to get through.

I think there wlll be a wave as the real criminals (think the TJX
compromise) and even more sophisticated cracks (the recent google one) come
to light.
Sites with lots to lose ($$, reputation, Intellectual Property) will have
layers to protect them.  They might have postfix on the DMZ feeding qmail
internally with ClamAV scanning.  Then run past a Windows AV that then feeds
Exchange for internal use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20100325/9bc8849e/attachment.html