RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-12 Thread Nick McClure
No, I'm talking about the little retailers and the rest of the people who go out and pick up a box from office depot or compusa, so they can check their email, and keep their finances in order. The Open Source movement doesn't address these people. From my stand point, it isn't a money thing,

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-12 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: linux is more secure than windows because only dorks use linux..:-) That moment is not far away anymore. While everybody keeps pointing at the big bad Microsoft and their silly 'vulnerable by default' out-of-the-box configuration, Microsoft is changing. And

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-12 Thread Denilicious
On 2/12/07, Jochem van Dieten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what is Linux doing? Is there a structured security and audit process? Is there a team being payed to make long days reviewing code instead of developing cool new features? Do those teams exist for all the addons that are shipped and

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-11 Thread Nick McClure
What magazines are you getting? Who is reading them? You think they guy running a four person retail store is reading Business 2.0? -Original Message- From: Denilicious [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think this sentiment reflects the current views-- Just about every mag I've

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-11 Thread Denilicious
On 2/11/07, Nick McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What magazines are you getting? Who is reading them? You think they guy running a four person retail store is reading Business 2.0? Ah, four person retail store-- depends. Is it a book store? ;) Yeah, I get your point. I don't think it's

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-10 Thread Denilicious
On 2/9/07, Nick McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larger companies that have IT people can do that, small companies that don't rely on the support provided by the vendor. Because they don't have to go out and find somebody else to support a product. I was talking about using a vendor, actually.

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-10 Thread Nick McClure
: Denilicious [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:02 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows On 2/9/07, Nick McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larger companies that have IT people can do that, small companies that don't rely

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-10 Thread Denilicious
On 2/10/07, Nick McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But most companies don't know about those options. Open source has a stigma when it comes to the average small business, they look at and assume it developed by a bunch of 13 year old kids in their parent's basement, if they even know what it

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-09 Thread Denilicious
On 2/8/07, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:] Are you proposing that the number of people who know C++, isn't that large? Or perhaps that it's so difficult to pick up a language, that there aren't many people familiar with

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-09 Thread Vivec
*falls over* tooo...much...text... *twitch* *twitch* urrk..urrkk.. On 2/9/07, Denilicious [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/8/07, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 MX7

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-09 Thread Nick McClure
Larger companies that have IT people can do that, small companies that don't rely on the support provided by the vendor. Because they don't have to go out and find somebody else to support a product. Most companies support their own products, so they expect the people that developed the products

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: But the idea that a problem in open source software is less problematic than in closed source because you can just fix it yourself always strikes me as completely silly. I do not consider that argument silly. I run (or have run at some point in time) my own custom

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Matthew Small
Hi Jochem, The process that owns port 80 on IIS 6.0 machines is the HTTP.SYS driver (when enabled). This is a kernel-mode driver that only forwards requests and *cannot* have user-mode application code loaded into it, as it does no execution. Any exploits into this are useless.

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: The process that owns port 80 on IIS 6.0 machines is the HTTP.SYS driver (when enabled). This is a kernel-mode driver that only forwards requests and *cannot* have user-mode application code loaded into it, as it does no execution. Any exploits into this are useless.

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Denilicious
On 2/8/07, Vivec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do youcould you just get this down tosay...one or two paragraphs? :) You're saying that a key advantage of Open Source is that the user Dude, I am so relaying everything else I have to say- er, type- thru you! But- My god man!, you left

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Robert Munn
linux is more secure than windows because only dorks use linux..:-) -- --- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 MX7 integration create powerful

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Jim Davis
-Original Message- From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:44 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows On 2/7/07, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you proposing that the number of people who know C

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-08 Thread Jim Davis
-Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:44 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows ** Private ** wrote: But the idea that a problem in open source software is less problematic than

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: Bah, the source code doesn't directly tell you its secure. But without secure source code you can not have a secure application. To my knowledge there hasn't been any attacks against IIS, every attack was against some specific technology that was usually found to have

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Nick McClure
-Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] How about Code Red and Nimda? Code Red targeted the MS Index Server, Nimba tried a few other buffer over runs to IDC as I recall. Both things that should have been disabled by MS by default, and disabled by any

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Matthew Small
Jochem, Can you please explain this to me: IIS needs to be run as a privileged user, Apache doesn't. Due to this simple fact, IIS is inherently less secure. If Apache gets compromised, you get the Apache account. If IIS gets compromised, you get the server. I don't know Apache at all.

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: From: Jochem van Dieten How about Code Red and Nimda? Code Red targeted the MS Index Server, Nimba tried a few other buffer over runs to IDC as I recall. According to MS at least Nimda was in IIS itself: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms00-078.mspx

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: Can you please explain this to me: IIS needs to be run as a privileged user, Apache doesn't. Due to this simple fact, IIS is inherently less secure. If Apache gets compromised, you get the Apache account. If IIS gets compromised, you get the server. I don't know

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Nick McClure
-Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] According to MS at least Nimda was in IIS itself: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms00-078.mspx I remember getting these hits in log files, they never caused my any problems because I didn't

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Robert Munn
He said Windows was less secure, not IIS. Let's see Apache on Linux v. Apache on Windows and see how that looks. On 2/6/07, Vivec wrote: Utter and complete rubbish. The amount of system calls in a webserver serving a static HTML page does not indicate how vulnerable an OS is. Plus he's

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Denstizzo
On 2/6/07, William Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate it when people start talking open source for enterprise applications that require 24x7x365 because when something does go wrong, I got nobody to call. Told this (well, similar) to my boss the other day in a synopsis of my response

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Matthew Small
What account does Apache start under? The most obvious privilege is the privilege to start processes under a different user account. The IIS worker process starts under it's own identity - Network Service. It's a incoming request that starts this process. Who's starting processes under

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Robert Munn
Apache can be made to run under any account that has run as a service privileges in Windows. On 2/7/07, Matthew wrote: What account does Apache start under? The most obvious privilege is the privilege to start processes under a different user account. The IIS worker process starts under

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Jochem van Dieten
** Private ** wrote: What account does Apache start under? The account you configure it to start under. The most obvious privilege is the privilege to start processes under a different user account. The IIS worker process starts under it's own identity - Network Service. Run

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Nick McClure
, it doesn't have to run as that account. -Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:00 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows ** Private ** wrote: What account does Apache start under

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Jim Davis
-Original Message- From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:43 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows There are people you pay to administer it. Same as anything else. We've been over this before, however

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Denstizzo
On 2/7/07, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Denstizzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:43 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows There are people you pay to administer it. Same

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-07 Thread Vivec
Do youcould you just get this down tosay...one or two paragraphs? :) You're saying that a key advantage of Open Source is that the user himself can alter the code and extend functionality as he needs to. You also mentioned the many modifications and extensions of the Apache webserver as

Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Bruce Sorge
This guy did a study on the subject and came up with this. What do you all think? http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311 -- Bruce Sorge I'm a mawg: half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend! ~| Upgrade to Adobe

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Zaphod Beeblebrox
I'd say I agree with the blogger. On 2/6/07, Bruce Sorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This guy did a study on the subject and came up with this. What do you all think? http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311 -- Bruce Sorge I'm a mawg: half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend!

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread C. Hatton Humphrey
I'd say I agree with the blogger. +1 though the pictures hurt my eyes ~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 MX7 integration create powerful cross-platform RIAs

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Vivec
Utter and complete rubbish. The amount of system calls in a webserver serving a static HTML page does not indicate how vulnerable an OS is. Plus he's comparing a bare bones linux installation with IIS which has ..asp and a whole host of other services running with it. Let's see his comparison

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Nick McClure
Who cares about LAMP, you want to compare Apples to Apples, get Tomcat involved. -Original Message- From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:53 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows Utter and complete rubbish

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Denstizzo
On 2/6/07, Nick McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who cares about LAMP, you want to compare Apples to Apples, get Tomcat involved. Bet *nix is still better. Anyways, the real issue is, how can I tell if IIS is secure? Audit the source code? Oh, yeah. Or: How about: want to make it better?

RE: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread Nick McClure
Bah, the source code doesn't directly tell you its secure. To my knowledge there hasn't been any attacks against IIS, every attack was against some specific technology that was usually found to have been left open by the user. If you have IIS doing a strait web request for HTTP with HTML that

Re: Why Linux is more secure than Windows

2007-02-06 Thread William Bowen
I hate it when people start talking open source for enterprise applications that require 24x7x365 because when something does go wrong, I got nobody to call. Told this (well, similar) to my boss the other day in a synopsis of my response to a proposal to move our CF /SQLServer 2000 stuff to