Confessions from a Sysadmin

[Slootvreter]

Yes, Linux does have security holes, the difference is no one bothers targeting them because so few computers run linux.

Agreed. But Windows haters cannot understand this.

 

[Mr.Jax]

To maybe put things into perspective...

 

[w1z4rd]

Also irrelevant, unless there are more mainframez in the world than desktops, and windows server did not exist at all.

By targeting windows you are gonna affect infintely more systems than any other OS.

*oh and to add to that, if you compromise those countless windows PC's, you are also screwing over banks etc. who, no doubt, implement the ever so leet linux servers

Im guessing you dont know Linux very well, cause its not just mainframes (though linux is on 90% of the worlds top 500 super computers and windows is on only 1) (also 99.999% of the servers out there are not *lol* "mainframes")... its routers, pabx`s, cars, watches, radios, PVR`s, gaming consoles, cellphones, ships, jets, NAS devices, AP`s and just about all hardware thats not a pc desktop. Its also growing in its tiny desktop market and growing quickly.

My servers get about 2000 brute force attempts a day on my one SSH port.. mostly from compromised zombie Windows machines on massive botnets

They do try target linux a lot, but linux handles its own. Theres no doubt in any thinking mans brain that Windows IS more insecure than Linux. Thats it. End of story. Thats how the cookie crumbles. Even if it had the market share that XP has... it still would _not_ be as insecure as Windows. Fully patched up... Linux is almost bulletproof while Windows gets owned in hours. (Check the results of the pwn2own contest over the last several years).

What we can say about the Windows desktop is it definitely has its place in the world, its the most popular desktop, its a good business desktop (if security is not an issue), its the easiest to exploit and its users are amongst the dumbest (though there are lots of smart users also, but on average...).

 

[ponder]

Yes, Linux does have security holes, the difference is no one bothers targeting them because so few computers run linux. What do you think would have happened if the guy was running Red Hat 3 without SELinux, and Linux was the dominating OS? He would still have got owned!

Remember the furore about SSL certificates in wich nix coders didnt understand the specification so they used predefined data as part of the certificate? Dont tell me Windows is so much worse!

EDIT Ahh here we go: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/16/debian_openssl_flaw/

Linux servers are the majority out there on the net, if you were a hacker would you not like to bring them down?

Ok, so we bring up the old Debian developer fsckup again, we like nailing that one seeing there are so few, some dude made a mistake which was not by design...

 

[h0ll0w]

Im guessing you dont know Linux very well, cause its not just mainframes (though linux is on 90% of the worlds top 500 super computers and windows is on only 1) (also 99.999% of the servers out there are not *lol* "mainframes")... its routers, pabx`s, cars, watches, radios, PVR`s, gaming consoles, cellphones, ships, jets, NAS devices, AP`s and just about all hardware thats not a pc desktop. Its also growing in its tiny desktop market and growing quickly.

My servers get about 2000 brute force attempts a day on my one SSH port.. mostly from compromised zombie Windows machines on massive botnets

They do try target linux a lot, but linux handles its own. Theres no doubt in any thinking mans brain that Windows IS more insecure than Linux. Thats it. End of story. Thats how the cookie crumbles. Even if it had the market share that XP has... it still would _not_ be as insecure as Windows. Fully patched up... Linux is almost bulletproof while Windows gets owned in hours. (Check the results of the pwn2own contest over the last several years).

What we can say about the Windows desktop is it definitely has its place in the world, its the most popular desktop, its a good business desktop (if security is not an issue), its the easiest to exploit and its users are amongst the dumbest (though there are lots of smart users also, but on average...).

You are missing my point.

to put things into perspective :

MS's operating systems have dominated this chart since PC's have been sold by the millions. (Make sure to carefully read the heading of this pie chart)

Now, in the light of the above, you are telling me we would have an internet free of any malware/virus/trojan/worm/etc if linux had been the exceedingly dominant OS since day 1 of the PC ?

*forgot to say : you also seem to have missed my subtle jest with the word "mainframez" but anyway...

 

[hawker]

Now, in the light of the above, you are telling me we would have an internet free of any malware/virus/trojan/worm/etc if linux had been the exceedingly dominant OS since day 1 of the PC ?

Not saying it would be free of any malware/virii whatsoever. What we are trying to say is that Linux is far more secure than Windows can ever hope to be and as a result takes a lot more effort to compromise. Now malware writes like water, choose the path of least resistance. Thus, they choose to code malware for an OS which is inherently much easier to compromise.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not saying it would be free of any malware/virii whatsoever. What we are trying to say is that Linux is far more secure than Windows can ever hope to be and as a result takes a lot more effort to compromise. Now malware writes like water, choose the path of least resistance. Thus, they choose to code malware for an OS which is inherently much easier to compromise.

But how do you know that?

For every 10000 hackers and malware writers targeting windows, there might be 1 targeting linux. Might be. Even if, IN THEORY, Windows is secure, they have found and continue to find holes. But thats not surprising with so many people going at it. If there were as many hackers targeting linux as windows, how many holes would they find?

You say that they dont bother targeting linux because its too difficult, but you have no proof that this is the case, for the simple reason that not enough hackers/malware writers have targeted it enough to really say for sure. And this because in every sphere except web servers, its less popular.

Your logic could be used to state that writing left handed is more difficult than writing right handed, because there are more right handed people than left handed. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Asha'man X]

Linux rules the web servers, but what about internal IT networks? Most of these do run mixed servers, but Windows Server, Exchange, SQL, Sharepoint and so on are right up there. Quite a few of these servers don't see the internet at all.

Windows Server 2008 is a heck of a lot more secure out the box than Server 2003. It's not perfect of course, but it can be locked down even more with some guides and logic. We run it at our school, and have never had a virus outbreak in the school. Nod32 on the servers and desktops stops the attacks cold, and WSUS patches the boxes pretty much right away.

 

[Nod]

But how do you know that?

For every 10000 hackers and malware writers targeting windows, there might be 1 targeting linux. Might be. Even if, IN THEORY, Windows is secure, they have found and continue to find holes. But thats not surprising with so many people going at it. If there were as many hackers targeting linux as windows, how many holes would they find?

You say that they dont bother targeting linux because its too difficult, but you have no proof that this is the case, for the simple reason that not enough hackers/malware writers have targeted it enough to really say for sure. And this because in every sphere except web servers, its less popular.

Your logic could be used to state that writing left handed is more difficult than writing right handed, because there are more right handed people than left handed. Correlation does not imply causation.

Maybe ask W1z4rd, since he obviously do have proof?

My servers get about 2000 brute force attempts a day on my one SSH port.. mostly from compromised zombie Windows machines on massive botnets

They do try target linux a lot, but linux handles its own. Theres no doubt in any thinking mans brain that Windows IS more insecure than Linux. Thats it. End of story. Thats how the cookie crumbles. Even if it had the market share that XP has... it still would _not_ be as insecure as Windows. Fully patched up... Linux is almost bulletproof while Windows gets owned in hours. (Check the results of the pwn2own contest over the last several years).

 

[Olsmithy]

Haha true. true that fail to ban is great hey! But just like you we are all vulnerable in many other ways as Linux server admins.

Take an example. Intruder finds a vulnerability in a web application that allows remote file uploads.
Uploads a shell script written in PHP like php shell.
Then uses a local privilege escalation exploit to compromise the server. If you really unlucky he uses one like this that works with GRSEC and PaX kernels.

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/22014

This whole process can be done in complete anonymity behind TOR exit nodes. Good luck tracing him.

Now if you sitting there thinking my IDS/IPS will catch this sort of thing think again it's a myth those are designed to catch point and click attackers like script kiddies. If said attacker uses self decrypting payload obfuscation. it's game over even for a linux server.

 

[h0ll0w]

Android is pretty much linux isn't it ?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060210-android-rootkit-is-just-a.html

 

[Drake2007]

Android is pretty much linux isn't it ?

Pretty much.
This whole Windows vs. Linux debate is rather pointless, we all work in or with hetrogenous environments and each OS has its own niche.
Personally I'd love to see Symbian OS for PC, though even that is still developed with C++ code and there in lies the whole exploitability problem with any and every OS out there. It will never go away.

 

[Ancalagon]

Android is pretty much linux isn't it ?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060210-android-rootkit-is-just-a.html

Well it uses the Linux kernel but its not really a linux distro. Runs a lot of custom code that wont be found in other distros, and also lacks a lot of GNU tools that are normally part of a linux distro (I think gcc is an important example).

MeeGo (merge of Moblin and Maemo) is closer to an actual distro I think. Its a joint effort between Intel and Nokia.