Re: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Paul Syverson
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:12:01PM -, Tony wrote:
> Microsoft Outlook is part of Microsoft Office - not part of Windows. Possibly 
> you mean Outlook Express. 
> 
[snip]

This  off-topic thread has gone on for too long.
Please stop this thread now.
-Paul

--
Paul Syverson  ()  ascii ribbon campaign  
Contact info at http://www.syverson.org/   /\  against html e-mail


RE: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Tony
Microsoft Outlook is part of Microsoft Office - not part of Windows. Possibly 
you mean Outlook Express. 

Outlook has not let you run emailed executables directly since the release of 
Outlook 2002.

Outlook has NEVER executed attachments by default without user interaction. You 
presumably refer to exploits resulting from viewing HTML emails. Sure there 
were a few of these, but security was considerably tightened on this since 
Outlook 2002, IE6 and XP SP2. I cant remember the last exploit on Outlook - 
they are certainly very rare in recent years.

The zombies you refer to are largely caused by historical bugs in IE6 on 
Windows XP and by people executing files and activeX addons from websites that 
ask them to. Not from any interaction with Outlook. The problem is made worse 
by the large number of people that run pirate versions of Windows and that have 
never installed XP SP2 because they cant - due to an invalid license key. 
(These issues do not apply to Windows server 2003 in a default install.)

With the release of IE7 and with Windows Vista the bar for exploits is much 
higher. Despite a year of betas for hackers to prepare and 3 months since 
release we havnt seen a notable Vista exploit yet.


Seeing as you are comparing, I seem to remember seeing dozens of get root 
exploits related to the 'sendmail' email component on UNIX - without needing 
any end user interaction.


I don't know where you got the idea that Linux has a faster IP stack than 
Windows Server. Pretty much every benchmark I have ever seen and my own 
experience contradicts that suggestion. Probably you just don't know how to 
tune and set the TCP Window size on your server. The Windows Server 2003 IP 
stack certainly outperforms the Redhat and Suse Linux IP stacks on standard HP 
server hardware. Especially when you look at high end cards like 10 Gbit 
Ethernet using Windows Server's scalable networking pack.

If you have ongoing resource issues on Windows Server then I would question 
your competence as a system admin or suggest you are running crappy software 
that has handle or resource leaks. Pretty much all resources on Windows are 
self configuring and any that are not are easily adjusted.

I get 90+ day uptimes on my Windows server running TOR (not to mention 
Exchange, IIS, etc) at without any resource issues at all. A reboot is only out 
of choice when I need to update or patch something. Current uptime is 42 days - 
since a disk change. :-)

Windows XP might have its issues, but to suggest that when comparing Windows 
SERVER to Linux that Linux is more secure is simply not the case. As you say, 
Linux is 'not a particularly secure operating system'

Sure PHP is one of the problems I was referring to - it comes on the Linux CD 
does it not? Not to mention exploits in SSH, SSL, and the many other LAMP 
related issues there have been over the last year or two.

Nb - GoDaddy as a business converted over 4.5 million web domains from Linux to 
Windows for several obvious reasons - TCO, performance and scalability:

Our business is based on providing the best possible service at the lowest 
possible price. This strategy requires us to maximize all of our resources, 
particularly our technology assets," said Warren Adelman, GoDaddy.com president 
and COO. "It was clear from all of the testing we've conducted that Microsoft 
provides an efficient and scalable operating platform, while also providing the 
performance needed to handle our extraordinary growth."


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: 13 February 2007 16:35
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details


Okay, I'll chomp upon this troll bait, and descend into lame OS penile
metrology. Hit delete *now*.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:26:55PM -, Tony wrote:

> Windows hasn't rendered active content by default since XP SP2. 

I beg to disagree. Outlook pane preview or opening a Word document,
or clicking on an attachment is equivalent to external code execution. How 
do you think that malware makes it onto those 250 Mzombies I mentioned? 

Have you seen a Unix mail client where the default operation
on an attachment is execution? Try executing something random
you download off the web either in KDE or Gnome, it's rather pedagogical.   
Have you seen a FLOSS browser which comes with that great 
technology called ActiveX? God knows Firefox
has its issues, but IE it's not.

> It has never rendered it by default in Vista or Windows 2003.

All very widespread operating systems, Vista especially.
And Windows 2003 server default browser settings are pure joy.
Nothing works anymore, so users so love it.   
 
> Windows also no longer runs as administrator by default (I guess you havnt 
> used Vista yet).

No, and I won't, unless I have to set up a VMware system for it at work.
I refu

Re: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Eugen Leitl

Okay, I'll chomp upon this troll bait, and descend into lame OS penile
metrology. Hit delete *now*.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:26:55PM -, Tony wrote:

> Windows hasn't rendered active content by default since XP SP2. 

I beg to disagree. Outlook pane preview or opening a Word document,
or clicking on an attachment is equivalent to external code execution. How 
do you think that malware makes it onto those 250 Mzombies I mentioned? 

Have you seen a Unix mail client where the default operation
on an attachment is execution? Try executing something random
you download off the web either in KDE or Gnome, it's rather pedagogical.   
Have you seen a FLOSS browser which comes with that great 
technology called ActiveX? God knows Firefox
has its issues, but IE it's not.

> It has never rendered it by default in Vista or Windows 2003.

All very widespread operating systems, Vista especially.
And Windows 2003 server default browser settings are pure joy.
Nothing works anymore, so users so love it.   
 
> Windows also no longer runs as administrator by default (I guess you havnt 
> used Vista yet).

No, and I won't, unless I have to set up a VMware system for it at work.
I refuse to buy and run DRM-infested systems on principle. 

The necessity to install and run many userland things as
administrator is only indirectly Redmond's fault, but it
has become a part of the information ecology. It doesn't
matter that your OS wants you to be safe, but the applications
don't. You're stuck with that tar baby for a while.
 
> Its not just in theory. For instance IIS is now so improved that many 
> sites fed up with the constant hacking, exploits, defacements and 
> patching regime dependency compatibility issues that they experience 
> on Linux are migrating over to Windows server 2003. This has been a 

I don't know what they're experiencing on Linux (it's not a particularly
secure operating system, unless cared for properly, I'd rather like
to get away from it on the long run, OpenBSD being the most likely candidate), 
but I don't know what a web server has to do with the OS kernel. You're 
probably (I have to guess here) referring to PHP, which is a) not a web 
server, nor an operating system b) should be certainly considered a cracker 
facilitation tool.

Clearly Sturgeon's rule directly applies here. 

> consistent trend for some time now and Apache just dropped below 

Yes, I've stopped using Apache a long time ago. Strangely enough
my web server isn't even mentioned in the statistics. And it
is also pretty low on vulnerabilities count. Isn't diversity
great?

> 60% market share for the first time since 2002 as a direct result 
> of cumulative migrations from Linux to Windows.

Yes, these numbers are really so meaningful, especially since
GoDaddy converted to MS and hence IIS for no obvious reasons, and it
made rather a spike on the pool. Also, again: Sturgeon's rule.
As you know, millions of flies can't ever possibly be wrong,
so let's all dine on excrement.
 
> As you say 'most installations are now secure by default'. Touché. 

I guess time will tell. I do not anticipate a decrease in the
number of Windows zombies anytime soon. But if it happens it 
will be certainly a pleasant surprise. 

As to tor, I just wouldn't run it on a non-server system.
(No, Windows 2003 Server is not a server OS -- I know, since
I have to support it).

Both the IP stack performance is awful, there are resource
exhaustion issues which require periodic reboots lest system
lockups occur, and you're not supposed it make it easier
for Mallory by running a router on a vulnerable system.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


RE: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Tony
Windows hasn't rendered active content by default since XP SP2. It has never 
rendered it by default in Vista or Windows 2003.

Windows also no longer runs as administrator by default (I guess you havnt used 
Vista yet).

Its not just in theory. For instance IIS is now so improved that many sites fed 
up with the constant hacking, exploits, defacements and patching regime 
dependency compatibility issues that they experience on Linux are migrating 
over to Windows server 2003. This has been a consistent trend for some time now 
and Apache just dropped below 60% market share for the first time since 2002 as 
a direct result of cumulative migrations from Linux to Windows.

As you say 'most installations are now secure by default'. Touché. 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: 13 February 2007 10:34
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:25:54AM -, Tony wrote:

This is offtopic, but...

> Actually Windows does exactly the same thing. e.g. the 'Network 
> Service' and 'Local Service' accounts. See 
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/midsizebusiness/topics/netwo
> rksecurity/securingaccounts.mspx

The point is that rendering active content is default, and running everything 
as administrator is default (in fact, most Windows userland software needs to 
be installed and run as administrator) -- the technology and the culture 
conspire to give us the 250 Mzombie Internet experience we love.
  
> People seem to forget that the original and worst worm outbreak ever - that 
> efffectively shut down the internet for days was on UNIX...

That was a long time ago. Unix is diverse, and most installations are now 
secure by default. The technology and the culture work together, and lower 
profile is one of the key points that diversity is good, monoculture is bad.
  
> Windows might have its problems but they are not unique.

You're correct only in theory.

--
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org 
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


Re: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:25:54AM -, Tony wrote:

This is offtopic, but...

> Actually Windows does exactly the same thing. e.g. the 'Network Service' and 
> 'Local Service' accounts. See 
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/midsizebusiness/topics/networksecurity/securingaccounts.mspx

The point is that rendering active content is default, and
running everything as administrator is default (in fact,
most Windows userland software needs to be installed and run
as administrator) -- the technology and the culture
conspire to give us the 250 Mzombie Internet experience
we love.
  
> People seem to forget that the original and worst worm outbreak ever - that 
> efffectively shut down the internet for days was on UNIX...

That was a long time ago. Unix is diverse, and most installations
are now secure by default. The technology and the culture
work together, and lower profile is one of the key points
that diversity is good, monoculture is bad.
  
> Windows might have its problems but they are not unique.

You're correct only in theory.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


RE: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details

2007-02-13 Thread Tony
Actually Windows does exactly the same thing. e.g. the 'Network Service' and 
'Local Service' accounts. See 
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/midsizebusiness/topics/networksecurity/securingaccounts.mspx
 
People seem to forget that the original and worst worm outbreak ever - that 
efffectively shut down the internet for days was on UNIX...
 
Windows might have its problems but they are not unique.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Tue 13/02/2007 06:53
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: PHP coder needs Tor details



> To shorten... How do I allow nobody to utilize Tor (It can already
> do that but I must start it like a root and stop it like a root)

Please don't.

The very reason Unix is more secure than Windows is that Unix actively
uses the permission system to prevent insecure things like PHP from
munging the networking daemons.  By running PHP with higher
privileges, you'll make your Unix system just as insecure as Windows.

Juliusz




<>