[Klug-general] Linux to offer a paradigm-shift in computer security

[Karl Lattimer]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:56 +0000, Karl Buckland wrote:
> Karl Lattimer wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, you enable the firewall that's disabled by default (XP SP2 CD's
> > are rare), you add a third party antivirus product on (which doesn't
> > work properly because of patchguard), you then start using internet
> > explorer and yahoo mail.
> >
> > Sure windows can be made secure, but in reality anything that is a
> > pairing of internet explorer,the most insecure web browser in the world,
> > and the worst at rendering and services like Yahoo mail, where its not
> > just the dodgy emails that get you, yahoo have had their ad providers
> > hacked/poisoned a couple of times too.
> >
> > The reality is, there's probably about 15 people in the world where
> > windows can be a truly secure OS for them. Other than that its just
> > flocking in swarms to avoid the sharks. 
> >
> > K,
> >   
> I know you said 'truly secure', but as we've already mentioned, there is 
> no such thing ;-)

Relatively secure then :)

> 
> Linux is only really more secure at the moment because there are no 
> active Linux virii or Linux spyware. 

Having been involved in developing malware for linux during my formative
years I must say... what a pile of crap! 

Firstly, UNIX is not susceptible to the same issues as windows,
developing any kind of social engineering scam is made immensely
difficult by the architechture. 

You can't exactly say to someone sudo echo "bleh::0:0::/bin/bash:"
>> /etc/passwd and expect them to actually do it!

A client application for a wild park like the internet, like web
browsers cannot affect the rest of the system without a chain of
exploits and this is VERY difficult to pull off.

> 
> Interestingly Mac users had a notable security threat recently 
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7079777.stm) although I think 
> it's not particularly serious compared to the sort of threats that 
> surface on Windows. On the desktop, Mac usage is currently around the 
> 4-5% mark having grown in the last few years, with Linux down at 1-2%. 
> If Linux continues to grow and attract more desktop users, which I'm 
> sure it will, then it won't be long before it also attracts similar threats.

So to sum up you think Linux hasn't been affected by these attacks,
although these attacks went on far more regularly directed at Linux
between around 1997-2001 because Linux was getting the lion share of the
web server market. After events like, cinik, m1lw0rm, rpc.statd to name
THREE of thousands of worms and attacks that were directed toward Linux
and had MASSIVE impact at the time.

Because of these attacks, because of only this reason Linux and open
source devs has closed more security blunders than microsoft, which is
why it didn't only start to take the lion share of the web server
market, but now OWNS it!

These attacks tailed off, not because no-one wanted to attack web
servers running apache in e-commerce environments but because it became
so unbelievably difficult to write an effective exploit, the exploit
writers turned to desktop users, and now want to steal the funds from
the source not the middle man.

Its naive for me to think that there won't be an outbreak of Linux
targeted worms and virii, isn't it? Although after writing one or two I
think the chances of anyone attempting something on the scale of the
storm worm is minimal.

Linux is UNIX, UNIX isn't VAX!

K,