Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Mar 2008 20:39 UTC, submitted by irbis
Privacy, Security, Encryption "An Apple Mac was the first victim in a hacker shoot-out to determine which operating system is the most secure. A former US National Security Agency employee has trousered USD 10000 for breaking into a MacBook Air at CanSecWest security conference's PWN 2 OWN hacking contest. The MacBook was lined up against Linux and Vista PCs - which have so far remained uncracked. Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network, but yesterday the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organisers using the computers to do things like visit websites or open email messages. The MacBook was the only system to be hacked by Thursday. Miller didn't need much time. He quickly directed the contest's organisers to visit a website that contained his exploit code, which then allowed him to seize control of the computer, as about 20 onlookers cheered him on. He was the first contestant to attempt an attack on any of the systems." There is more bad news for Apple: "If you have Apple and compare it to Microsoft, the number of unpatched vulnerabilities are higher at Apple." Update: The contest is over. Vista got hacked using Adobe's Flash, Ubuntu was left standing.
Thread beginning with comment 307048
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 28th Mar 2008 21:02 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

It will be interesting to see which laptop gets pwned next.

It would be nice if Ubuntu holds it's ground. That said, Ubuntu isn't the most secure distribution out-of-the-box, since AppArmor or SELinux aren't configured by default.

Fedora or RHEL would have been better contenders because they have more security defense mechanisms by default.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hmm
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 28th Mar 2008 21:05 in reply to "Hmm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Fedora or RHEL would have been better contenders because they have more security defense mechanisms by default.


I think the goal is to use common, default setups. And let's face it, Ubuntu is the common distro at this point. In other words, I think it makes sense to settle for Ubuntu.

Reply Parent Score: 11

v RE[2]: Hmm
by Moulinneuf on Fri 28th Mar 2008 23:07 in reply to "RE: Hmm"
RE[2]: Hmm
by mzilikazi on Sat 29th Mar 2008 02:32 in reply to "RE: Hmm"
mzilikazi Member since:
2006-02-11

If the deciding factor for most appropriate distro to represent Linux was "most vocally present group" then Ubuntu might have been the correct choice. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Redhat has been around far far longer than Ubuntu, is installed in the enterprise around the world and used by thousands daily for real world computing not just the "lookit ma I can install Linux now too" crowd.

Reply Parent Score: 2