Anton Karpov wrote:
Maybe, because in some cases, it just takes a bit more time to 0wn your box if it has no compiler installed.
Bull. I've never heard of someone taking over a box using a compiler. After all, the compiler is not exposed to the outside world. At most, they build some tools on the system AFTER the takeover. But that's hardly the only way to get those tools on the system. scp works very nicely. ftp works very nicely. http works very nicely. After all...why download and compile tools when you can just download the pre-compiled tools? If you can't download the pre-compiled binaries, you won't be downloading the source, either. Proof: how many Windows boxes have development tools installed? A: Almost none. Conclusion: Windows is more secure. ...uh, wait a minute. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of easily disproved nonsense. I can show you lots of examples of compromise which had nothing to do with the compiler. Can you show me one example of compromise which REQUIRED a compiler? (i.e., could not be accomplished without the compiler on the target machine, lack of hardware by the attacker doesn't count). The only time when leaving off the compiler might help is if your vulnerable machine is a non-mainstream platform...and relying on that for security is kinda like moving the door of your house to the back, so attackers can't find it. Nick.
