Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jan 2006 22:56 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Open source experts have hit back at a study published by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team that said more vulnerabilities were found in Linux/Unix than in Windows in 2005, labelling the report misleading and confusing. The report has attracted criticism from the open source community. Linux vendor Red Hat said the vulnerabilities had been miscategorised, and so could not be used to compare the relative security of Windows and Linux/Unix platforms.
Thread beginning with comment 82685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: this is ridiculous
by ivans on Sat 7th Jan 2006 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: this is ridiculous"
ivans
Member since:
2005-12-03

Because there are few multi-user Windows machines.

It's just 5000 of them in my college ;) And every corporate desktop is ran in LUA, and you certainly cannot dismiss them so easily.

Also you seem to confuse the "privilege escalation" with "multiuser" - it's not the point to have hundreds of different accounts on the machine, two (Administrator and LUA) is just enough.

Fetchmail isn't available for Windows ;)

That's what you think ;)
http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm

Ah, but RHEL ships how much software, and Windows ships how much software? Where's that Windows PDF viewer again?

But it DOESN'T MATTER, if the package is a part of RHEL installation, it has to be counted! That's the bad thing of popular linux distros - thousand different programs, each having their own holes, most of them are a part of default install and most users WILL install them all.

Remote exploits do not involve user interaction. As you said, and I said, but for some reason you're still arguing.

It's because WMF fits into the same category as this FF flaw (user has to visit a malicious web page), and yet you see that bugtraq, secunia, frsirt..all marked this WMF and FF flaw as "remotely exploitable". You need to check on your terminology usage ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: this is ridiculous
by ma_d on Sat 7th Jan 2006 04:18 in reply to "RE[4]: this is ridiculous"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

With 5,000 machines your college is almost certainly using a domain system. That's a bit different from straight multi-user machines.

Priviledge Escalations only matter when you have untrusted users, which means you have more than 2. No one is going to hack their own machine with mal intent. You're not worried about the programs you run doing it, that's really not something people on *nix platforms think about. Instead they just don't run random code from anywhere. That's one reason for distributions, if you only use your distributions packages you know someone else has tested the code you're running.


But it DOESN'T MATTER, if the package is a part of RHEL installation, it has to be counted! That's the bad thing of popular linux distros - thousand different programs, each having their own holes, most of them are a part of default install and most users WILL install them all.
No, default installs are almost always under 2.5GB. That's not a lot of software. Most systems default to one desktop, one app for each common task, and no servers.
And still, the default install doesn't start all your programs for you. You have to do that yourself (this changed about 3 years or so ago with daemons). Programs on a hard disk are no more dangerous than word documents; you have to start them to be in danger.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: this is ridiculous
by molnarcs on Sat 7th Jan 2006 19:07 in reply to "RE[4]: this is ridiculous"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

It's because WMF fits into the same category as this FF flaw (user has to visit a malicious web page),

Oh yes, here we go again, with deliberately distorting the facts to prove your point. Or ironically, you are right, actually it fits the the same category as the FF flaw. Problem is (and you ignore it conveniently) that the WMF flaw has multiple attack vectors. Visiting a page is just one of them - and even if it were the only one, it would still be more serious than the FF flaw, for you can put up wmf images masked as jpgeg or png almost on any page or popup windows. You can upload it to a blog, attach to a post on a random forum, etc. But the WMF exploit is a single payload multi vector attack that you can get almost via any means - email, msn, media, etc. When you claimed that the WMF vuln. is in the same category as the FF vuln. you lost any remaining credibility here.

Reply Parent Score: 1