> You're wrong. Someone hacked it.
Please check your facts.
"A private firm, VirTech Communications, set up a Mac server and offered
$15,000 to anyone who could gain unauthorized access. No one could ever. The
site was running for two years and had over 140,000 attacks."
(NY Times, 12 April 97)
> > OK, I missed a bunch of this (flame part) but aren't the MacOS
> > running WebStar more secure and as flexible as either of the Windows
> > or *nix based servers?
> >
> > rmj
There was a contest years ago to hack a Mac running WebStar and no one was
able to. However this is not an apples to
e exploits would be found.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert M. Judy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Bremer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
> OK, I
; on 07/16/2002 11:05:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: RUSSELL T. LEWIS/SPECTRAL RESPONSE INC./SPECTRALNT1)
Subject: RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
Can I add to this discussion that the security of the web server while a
high priority is not the only priority. We touched on t
vor Cushen
-Original Message-
From: RUSSELL T. LEWIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2002 14:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
Trustix Secure Linux (www.trustix.com and on linux ftp mirrors) is a
perfect
example for a *nix distro that was
e best.
-Russell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/16/2002 03:09:06 AM
To: "Hornat, Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: RUSSELL T. LEWIS/SPECTRAL RESPONSE
INC./SPECTRALNT1)
Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
While it is generally true that default
Jason Yates wrote:
>The Apache configuration tools are far behind anything from Microsoft.
>Admittely the httpd.conf file is very easy to learn, and once you learn it
>you'll love it. But the truth is we live in a GUI world and Apache needs a
>damn good gui. This task isn't easy at all though, b
While it is generally true that default installations are insecure,
it is not absolutely true. OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.com) comes
to mind as a secure default installation. Conversely to commercial
and most open source alternatives, the primary focus of OpenBSD is
security at the cost of all
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Jason Yates wrote:
> I not sure where you heard that is hard to connect to MS-based databases
> from Unix. It's a completely false statement. First of, Apache doesn't
> control DB connections. The language like PHP or perl thats there domain.
Also, there are odbc librari
> I didn't say it was hard, I just said you might have to do some tweaking.
> Many Windows-based RDBMS solutions don't come with drivers for
> unix, or for
> every flavor of it, and a lot of sysadmins are going to end up using free
> stuff like unixODBC, iodbc, and/or FreeTDS to get their data fro
I really hate these religious debates over who is more secure, so I did a little study
to see which is worse out of the box as well as with the latest security/cluster
patches. www.securitywriters.org "OS Scan".
Its a no win argument because both can be hardened and both are weak out of the b
>
> > Database access is available for both platforms. IIS can talk to any
> > database that can be accessed via ADO and/or ODBC. This includes SQL
> Server,
> > MySQL, and many others. Apache can do the same thing,
> although you may
> have
> > to do some tweaking to get a Unix boxen to talk wi
> There's nothing you can do on the one platform that you can't do on the
> other, given enough effort. For example, in the case of IIS, you have
> ASP/ASPX, with Apache you can use PHP or similar products. The major
> difference is that with IIS, most of the functionality is built in to the
> web
>
> > A good idea in principle, but it won't stop buffer
> overflows targeted at
> > port 80- after all, the firewall would have to let such
> traffic through or
> > the web server would be unavailable. Sophisticated
> firewalls exist for lots
> > of cash that can block some attacks, but most
> If your firewall doesn't allow outbound http requests they can't fetch
> the backdoor program. If you don't allow inbound connections on any
> port other than 80, they they can't get to a shell even if they did
> install and run their backdoor program. The same script flaw is still
> there, but
A very good point made here on what you allow to go from your web server
via the firewall. Alot of people only consider the threat of what comes
in. Note that there are many tools that allow traffic to 'tunnel'
through port 80, so if your firewall allows traffic out from port 80
then it can be e
> A good idea in principle, but it won't stop buffer overflows targeted at
> port 80- after all, the firewall would have to let such traffic through or
> the web server would be unavailable. Sophisticated firewalls exist for lots
> of cash that can block some attacks, but most off-the-shelf unixe
exactly.
-Original Message-
From: Snow, Corey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:56 PM
To: 'Johan De Meersman'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan De Meersma
Quoting Robert M. Judy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> OK, I missed a bunch of this (flame part) but aren't the MacOS
> running WebStar more secure and as flexible as either of the Winows
> or *nix based servers?
No such thing as "more secure". Different security approaches - yes.
Elimination of basic
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
>
>
> how about you take whatever webserver you fancy, and throw a *nix
&
> So to wrap up this flame, can we get back to the question posed
> orginally?.
>
> "Which is the better web server to use and why?"
>
You'll get (and probably have gotten) a lot of different responses on this.
For some, the choice of web server platform borders on religious hysteria.
For other
> Because if you are allowing port 80 through on your firewall and the
> web server is badly or insecurely configured then exploits like
> MSADC.pl can be used with ease against your web server.
This is a very important point here that Trevor has made. Your
"standard" packet filtering firewall
OK, I missed a bunch of this (flame part) but aren't the MacOS
running WebStar more secure and as flexible as either of the Winows
or *nix based servers?
rmj
>> Yes the default WWW Service runs as System on Windows and yes you can
>> (and should) change that. It is quite unbelievable just
Greetings Steve,
I agree with what you have said BUT since I have worked with load balancing
in W2K, I do really find it very easy.
>From what I know, load balancing is very easy to setup on Windows 2000
Server. It is part of the networking component. All it takes is enabling it
(without a reboo
Engineer
MCSE, CCSE, CCNA, CCA
- -Original Message-
From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
how about you take whatever webserver you fancy, and throw a *nix
firewall in fron
: +353 1 2983000
Fax: +353 1 2960499
-Original Message-
From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 July 2002 16:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
how about you take whatever webserver you fancy, and throw a *nix
firewall in front of
> Yes the default WWW Service runs as System on Windows and yes you can
> (and should) change that. It is quite unbelievable just how much you
That's very good.
>
> It is interesting that you point out one of the exploits available for
> OpenSSH which highlights the fact that other systems hav
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:25 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
>>
>>
>>Hi list,
>>
>>I have some websites running on Microsoft IIS on NT/2000 servers and
>>
>>
&
Scanner is web
server only.
Trevor Cushen
Sysnet Ltd
www.sysnet.ie
Tel: +353 1 2983000
Fax: +353 1 2960499
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bremer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 July 2002 14:14
To: Trevor Cushen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
> My apologies, I had replied quite quickly while running through the
> office. And re-reading the email and your comments I see your point
> on many issues, in that I didn't back up anything really, did I.
No problem, I'm sure we all have been guilty of the same thing from
time to time.
> The
ase let us know what you decide in the
end.
Trevor Cushen
Sysnet Ltd
www.sysnet.ie
Tel: +353 1 2983000
Fax: +353 1 2960499
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bremer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 July 2002 19:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
>
snet Ltd
www.sysnet.ie
Tel: +353 1 2983000
Fax: +353 1 2960499
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 July 2002 20:08
To: Trevor Cushen
Cc: Mario Behring; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
In previous mail, Trevor
> But you don't have the full
> range of toys to use for fancy web sites. Sun's Active One or Soft
> Chili (old name) allows you to use VBScript ASP pages but not all
> functions are supported and it runs only on Intel at the moment.
I don't think the first sentence above is an accurate stateme
In previous mail, Trevor Cushen spouted...
>
> you. Apache gives you the freedom of almost any hardware platform, but
> load balancing is far easier to setup on Windows then any Unix systems.
Can you justify this statement? How is windows any easier to load
balance a service on
-
From: Mario Behring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 July 2002 15:25
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
Hi list,
I have some websites running on Microsoft IIS on NT/2000 servers and I
have to justify a possible change to Unix servers running Apache or
IPl
ED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:25 AM
Subject: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
> Hi list,
>
> I have some websites running on Microsoft IIS on NT/2000 servers and I
> have to justify a possible change to Unix servers running Apache or
> IPlanet using C
OK Marco hear's my $0.02
for me I look at as hardening an operating system and then weakening it
again by adding services! So lets deal with the OS first.
If you are talking about Linux versus Windows then there is not much
between them and I would go with your skill set. (If there was than i
can take
the steps to secure).
Jimmy
> -Original Message-
> From: Mario Behring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers
>
>
> Hi list,
>
> I have some websites
Hi list,
I have some websites running on Microsoft IIS on NT/2000 servers and I
have to justify a possible change to Unix servers running Apache or
IPlanet using CORBA. The reason is only one, more secure web servers and
more secure web sites.
Can you guys give me your opinion and some arguments
39 matches
Mail list logo
