A Windows computer without the latest security patches is in big trouble. That’s the conclusion from a “honey pot” experiment conducted by StillSecure, a Louisville network security firm. StillSecure attached six computers – loaded with different versions of the Windows, Linux and Apple’s Macintosh operating systems – earlier this month to the Internet without anti-virus software. The results show the Internet is a very rough place.
How secure is your computer?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
My computer is not connected to the Internet. I have to go across town to use this computer (which frankly sucks).
I still think that computers should go through a seperate firewall ( either a unix box or hardware one ) before being connected to the net. No matter what operating system you use.
Unbelievable – If you connect a non-SP2 XP to the Internet, it gets INFECTED !
That’s ABSOLUTELY NEW !
StillSecure should be proposed for the Nobel price in finding extremely new and interesting informations about IT security !
It always depends on the administrator in the end. *nix based OSes are much more adept to the Internet, they built the Internet on *nix.
Somehow in my own little world this makes me feel proude of running windows xp sp2. To bad they didn’t test windows 2000.
FreeBSD. I use to use Linux, which is the least secure OS in the world. I stopped using linux because I found the community a little abusive (I’d mention the distro but then they’d report this post as abuse, how ironic).
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/115595/65/
“An independent study by British cyber security firm, mi2g, has found Apple’s OS X Server and the Berkely Software Distribution (BSD) open source systems on which it is based, to be the most secure online server operating systems in the world,”
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;188808220;fp;2;fpid;1
“According to London security analysis and consulting firm mi2g, Linux is the most commonly breached operating system on computers connected to the Internet 24/7.”
“SP 1 is not a current operating system,” said Sundwall. “It doesn’t surprise me that it only took 18 minutes to get infected.”
– Get with the times, man. SP1 is sooooo 2004.
that old cat did well.
Actually I think SP1 came out in 2002 Sept 9th or there abouts.
So you would consider 2002 the year SP1 became obsolete (the year it came out)? I would consider it the year that XP SP2 became widely popular (late last year).
I stopped using linux because I found the community a little abusive
Well, if you were saying things like “Linux is the least secure OS in the world”, then I can understand why people were rude to you…
That MiG study did not take into account systems being compromised by malware (like a XP system compromised by Blaster, for example). In other words, it takes skills to hack a Linux machine while a worm can do the job for pre-XP SP2 systems.
Moreover, most Linux breaches are web sites defacement, and Linux+Apache is the most common platform for web servers. One could argue that the platform is the most attacked because it’s the prevalent one.
Firstly I doubt that your OS is the “most” secure in the world. It’s not even built on secure hardware.
Secondly no-one believes the mi2g survey you quote because it is highly flawed.
http://www.attrition.org/errata/charlatan/mi2g-history.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/1107msfoul.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/why_is_mi2g_so_unpopular/
And there is far more on the Internet than that
Oh and Thirdly Slackware Rules!
i’ll give you slackware:
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics11/LEMUR/LeMur-0/images/bd_Con…
Sorry guys. I was just trolling with my FreeBSD & Linux comments. Truth is no OS is secure and all admins need to stay on top of security issues.
Wonder why they didn’t test Mac OS 10.3 or commercial Unix systems. I have a number of linux servers connected to the internet 24×7 and you would be amazed in seeing just how often they are attacked. Blocking alot of the Asia network ip space at the firewall got rid of a lot if that but the amount of servers in north america that a used to try and hack my wee Linux serer is amazing.
So you would consider 2002 the year SP1 became obsolete (the year it came out)?
That’s a very good question.
To answer that I would have to see when Windows XP machines with SP1 ended up being attacked because of a vulnerability. And frankly I do not know, I have looked but it seems the information is either not there or I am not asking the right questions.
Please tell me something i dont know. That article is deadly oviouse. Everyone knows that a Windows box without security updates is going to get screwed over very quickly. Even with security updates it is going to get trashed unless you are running a firewall.
I use linux on most of my machines and i never have a problem with security. Because most people target windows ? Probably, but that doesnt make my statement any less true.
KDE
If you’d said OpenBSD I might have believed you 🙂
Typical MS propaganda though; “SP1 isn’t a current OS”. Of course it is; you can’t expect users to upgrade the minute you release an upgrade, especially one with SP2’s issues – I know someone who’s just spent a week trying to get Bluetooth working again after upgrading.
Smartpatrol: I guess they didn’t test any other OS’s because their point had been made; Jaguar didn’t get compromised anyway, and they’d probably have to pay real money for a commercial Unix system. The conclusion was pretty black and white: XP SP1 got owned, nothing else did. Although that total lack of any other attacks made the study seem a bit quick and dirty; “Oh look the XP system has gone down, that’s enough to write an article saying things people have known for years”.
I’m surprised it took 18 minutes though; I thought they might be down to 14 by now 🙂
Any system if you run as Administrator you are asking
problems.
You can add yourself as a basic ‘user’ and utilize all
the programs and applications you want. The phrase is
incorrect in Windows stating you have to run as admin,
there is no reason and no need. Correct setup and
administration is the key, no system is 100%
hacker proof or secure.
If it is man made it is prone to errors.
Dang, a naked XP without SP1 now that is a scary thought. I got SP2 and all the updates and I got no problems none whatsoever. Been almost 4 months that Adaware and Spybot,etc reported a single darn adware crap on my system. Not bad. Of course its because I screen every darn cookie before I let it write to my hdd. This way my system is surprisingly clean. I am glad IE remembers what cookies I refused and what I let in because it would beome a right pain in the arse to monitor all them damn cookie popups. Also the IE popup blocker coupled with the Google toolbar works fine. No popups other than those weird ones that look like they are a part of the page I am viewing itself. I cant believe I am saying this but I guess MS is finally improving a bit…but only cause Linux is kicking its butt slowly but steadily. I say to the Linux community and the open source community keep it up!!
I see a lot of people say “everyone knows an XP SP1 box will be infected in minutes”… do they?
I don’t think you really have to deal with people OUTSIDE the IT professionals world, otherwise you’d know that people HAVE NO IDEA.
Everytime I explain it to a user they look at me in wide eyed surprise. And 99% of the times the machine “has been acting funny from time to time”. You guessed it: spyware opening popups even when not at the keyboard and zombie processes bringing the cpu to 100%. Gods be praised that in italy only a minority has always on internet…
Why didn’t they test Ubuntu too? 0 open port by default.
It’s kinda funny reading all these security issue articles showing the “secureness” of the different OS’es.
As some of the other posts mentions it’s no news that an XP box running pre-SP2 is bound for nowhere.
What struck me as funny in this article was that they say that the Red Hat 9 box suffered no attacks at all while it’s enterprise counterpart (Enterprise 3) took a massive hit a month ago in the web-server security article. Both versions are aging, Red Hat 9 have been replaced by Fedora and Enterprise 3 by version 4.
I know I shouldn’t compare the tests since they are different, but I still found it funny.
Anyone know if the technical documents have been published on the win vs linux web-server test?
got rooted ?
http://www.windows-noob.com/
secure XP and iis
http://www.windows-noob.com/SecureXP
Windows can be made more secure with a bit of work, it’s not rocket science.
cheers
anyweb
Let’s say you have to reinstall windows xp on your computer. Guess what? some of my original CDs come with SP1, certainly not SP2. And guess what again? By the time I try to get to the desktop and turn on the “firewall” my computer has been already infected. In order to STAY alive you have to install the OS with the LAN/DSL cable detached. Which is good and doable, except for that activation thing that pops up in the middle of the install and asks for an internet connection… Meaning: an experienced user will definitely know how to circumvent all of these things, but a normal user with his original XP CD what would do when the operating system asks for an internet connection? would he know that even during installation the computer is vulnerable? Don’t think so.
Either your system is secure or it isn’t. Here’s a tip, no commodity OS is secure.
Taking a look at my daily linux server logs I have to say I’m both depressed and encouraged by what I see. Typically I’ll view a number of failed SSH login attempts using accounts like “test”, “admin”, “god” , “john”, etc. or once in a blue moon a very old remote overflow exploit. I’m encouraged because the attempts are dire and a waste of time, but depressed anybody could be bothered to be so lame in the first place.
Well, MS and poor rhetoric..
Sure SP1 is a totally different operating system…
Are they kidding?
In this “test” they didn’t choose Panther which is the actual OSX version, but instead they went with Jaguar…
Released in ….? Sure Jaguar has been released in 2002….
Just like SP1.
And there are only 3 attacks without one success…in an unpatched state.
Wow! Some of those tips are really helpful! (NOT!)
“Change the default install directory”
Stupid: %windir%system32commandwhatever.exe will execute just right. If you don’t know how to find out the windows directory you don’t go ’round making hackscripts, do you?
“Change the executables names (or disable and make a copy)”
Stupid: renaming cmd.exe, ftp, and others can break a lot of useful things, and any good spyware/trojan/virus nowadays uses internal code to do its stuff.
“Change the administrator account name”
Stupid: I’ll leave the explanations to this article:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/nt/atips/atips40.shtml
…and I am a linux admin, and I know VERY little compared to really experienced windows admins.
Those sites in fact only make things worse: the 1 in 20 windows user that cares about his safety follows those instructions and feels secure. WRONG.
changing the default install directory does help, regardless of your thoughts, why ? because worms/trojans et al, are in large pre-programmed with default paths such as c:windows or even d:windows. Checking your logs on a windows machine will verify that, assuming of course, you know how to audit files in the first place.
How can denying access to CMD.EXE not be a good thing ? if you read the article, in particular point 2. it states:-
2.) Disable and Audit the following files: http://ftp.exe, tftp.exe, command.com, cmd.exe, telnet.exe, wscript.exe, and cscript.exe. Regardless of the mechanism a hacker uses to break into your machine, the goal is the same: to execute the hacker’s code on your machine. The above mentioned programs can be used by hackers to install hacker software, and also run code of the hackers choice.
By disabling and auditing a file, you prevent the hacker from doing damage, and also audit the hacker’s activities in Event Viewer so that you can detect the attacks.
It is not recommended that you Delete or Rename any of these files. Windows XP includes a feature called “Windows File Protection” which will automatically replace some of these files (e.g. cmd.exe) if they are deleted or renamed.
If you need access to one of these programs, it is recommended that you make a copy of the program with a different name (e.g. “cmdsafe.exe” or “ftp99.exe”) — don’t forget to update any shortcuts to these files. This way, the hacker will not likely be able to find it (only you will know the name).
if you bothered to read the above you would have seen that I stated
‘It is not recommended that you Delete or Rename any of these files. Windows XP includes a feature called “Windows File Protection” which will automatically replace some of these files (e.g. cmd.exe) if they are deleted or renamed.’
On that note, i’m interested in learning what things break when you disable CMD.EXE, I’ve had a windows 2003 server running with one reboot (a power cut) in one year and it had CMD.EXE disabled. No issues having it disabled either. I’ve done the same on Windows XP boxes, with no problems. Oh and if you do come across some application that requires access to the file(s) simply reverse the security to default on the file, install the app, and make the change once again.
Now to your point here
Stupid: renaming cmd.exe, ftp, and others can break a lot of useful things, and any good spyware/trojan/virus nowadays uses internal code to do its stuff.
true, trojans/viruses and so on most likely nowadays have their own ftp etc abilities, but the point of the article, is to keep those trojans/viruses OUT of your box in the first place, but I guess you missed that. Also, have you perhaps noticed how many times CMD.EXE is referrenced in worms/trojans even today ? any particular reason why that is ?
cheers
anyweb
“Somehow in my own little world this makes me feel proude of running windows xp sp2. To bad they didn’t test windows 2000.”
Ditto.
I dual-boot both OSes on this pc but use 2000 more on the net and XP only when I have to.
Peace.
I’m using OpenBSD on servers & win2003 on desk. I’m wondering why they didn’t test win2003, openbsd, netbsd or freebsd for example
“Moreover, most Linux breaches are web sites defacement, and Linux+Apache is the most common platform for web servers. One could argue that the platform is the most attacked because it’s the prevalent one”
The same can be said for windows since it dominates the desktop market by huge portion. Linux and OSX don’t even dome close.
In all fairness, Linux is just as insecure as anything else if not secured properly.
I am tired of people not updating their systems when patches are out and blaming the OS. If you get compromised because of your laziness it’s your fault, plain and simple.
Don’t want to get hacked or spread worms? Update your system with security patches and anti-virus. Hell, your computer can even do it automatically if your really lazy.
On another note, FreeBSD is more secure by default than Linux (slackware aside, I am not familiar with it). Just look at Redhat and Suse installs. Root login permitted with SSH by default and services you don’t need installed by default are just a couple of things that got me. Slack may be different, but from the Linux distros I tried (Redhat, Suse, Debian) I wasn’t that impressed.
But I guess in all fairness you can set up iptables to deny SSH from only a couple of machines and change the config files yourself, but I’d rather have root login denied by default.
Why don’t each of the major ISPs set up test machines in their own offices, and everytime a machine gets attacked by an IP on their own network, they shut down those accounts immediately and when the customer calls to find out WTF is up, they can then be told to scan their machines for viruses/malware.
why does redhat 9 not get any attacks and fedora does? is it to do with the default running/listening services?
Taking a look at my daily linux server logs I have to say I’m both depressed and encouraged by what I see. Typically I’ll view a number of failed SSH login attempts using accounts like “test”, “admin”, “god” , “john”, etc. or once in a blue moon a very old remote overflow exploit. I’m encouraged because the attempts are dire and a waste of time, but depressed anybody could be bothered to be so lame in the first place.
That the same stuff i get on the two Linux machines i have visible via ssh on the internet. Its an amazing effort by whoever is doing it considering my boxes are here in Colorado and yours are in the UK.
You know a lot of the talk about security is primarily to pump up the stock of no-name “experts” in the field.
Any site at home or at work will require some type of security setup usually including a router or hardware or software firewall.
The exploits that get to your system only reach it if they first defeat the firewall. If you have a firewall in place, your absolutely fine.
I ran for years on the following principle:
* Only service packs from microsoft, not hot fixes, updates
* Tiny software firewall
* Anti virus service.
Anti virus I largely didn’t require but I do use my machine for mail and if caught with a virus I wouldn’t want to accidentally spread it to anyone in my address book.
You have to take into account that the concepts of anti virus and firewall have been completely absorbed by your average user. They *do* understand that the internet is a dangerous place. They do buy products (even crap like norton) to protect their machine. They understand that their data and identity information is important.
Its time to start ignoring the security myth, the myth of the clueless windows users, and start focusing on whats important – the usability of the operating system to accomplish the task that the users want to do.
I think its a very popular theme to say that alternatives like Linux will “save you” from these threats.. however small they are. The truth is that windows is the operating system of choice because it accomplishes the most tasks that the majority of users want to do easily, and there is very little competition (perhaps mac) who is on par with Microsoft.
Try this, install win9x/2k/xp/2k3, before going online close all ports, it’s possible by disabling unused serviced and editing registry. All ports can be closed without using a firewall. Don’t use IE or any other app from MS, replace them by free alternatives. Do not download from unsecure sources. Update apps frequently.
Ready , you are safe with windows.
You can make your OS secure or not, security is about the admin, not the OS.
A badly configured Linux distro can be a big ol’ zombie. A well configured system can be very secure indeed. Claims about Linux’s security either way are meaningless. You MUST specify an OS.
How about all OS developers start doing their jobs and putting security first rather than always blaming the average user?
what about a computer with SP1 but with zone alarm and mcaffee anti virus installed. is that any safer? there is a computer here at my office with that combination, should we be worried or is this secure?
Anyone got any recommendations for corporate level patch management solutions? I’ve tried PatchLink, which is good but apparently you can only deploy one patch at a time and requires quite a bit of babysitting. Although, the baseline rules are pretty neat.
I also looked into Shavlik HFNetCheckPro a year or so ago, but I found it was pretty slow at scanning a domain. I think they’re ussing agents now which PatchLink also uses. The good thing is that it can do multiple patches at a time.
I would like a solution that can sync with Microsoft’s update service, keep track of all the computers on the network, tell me what patches each computer has and doesn’t have, tell me other information about the computer (i.e. software/hardware inventory tracking), and completely apply all the patches it might need. I would like it to also notify me of any patch installation failures. It would be neat if it did this with little babysitting.
Anyone know of something that can handle that type of stuff and more? I’m still on the look out for some software like this. It would probably make my job alot easier. We got hit with that Goabot virus. Stupid Symantec didn’t catch it.
“You know a lot of the talk about security is primarily to pump up the stock of no-name “experts” in the field. ”
I agree, even though I am not a microsoft fanboy. I never used antivirus software and never had any problems. And I used to try a lot of warez. Not even with Widows 98. The problem is that it is not in the interest of computer industry to educate users about the very trivial (common sense really) steps to secure your system. The dumber the users the better for microsoft and its ilk.
This weekend my WinXP SP2 with updates almost got FreshBar installed simply by browsing. As far as I can tell, they took advantage of a buffer overflow hole in WMP9. I never installed WMP10 because IMHO, it sucks rotten eggs. Must of missed an update somewhere.
And yeah, keeping your system up-to-date with services packs, updates, hot-fixes, latest anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware IS a rocket science.
I don’t know who should be hung from the nearest lamp post – Microsoft for such an operating system full of holes, or the low-lifes who write the code to install cr*p on your machine for no good reason.
Any that are worth their salt already do.
ZoneAlarm is one of the few “personal firewalls” that has a history of being TARGET of attacks. Replace it with something else (Kerio for example).
If you want to be a bit safer use a router/firewall to connect to the DSL, or take an old PC (P133 or P2 will suffice) with two ethernet cards and install a dedicated linux distro like ipcop. It requires some network knowledge, but practically no linux knowledge.
what about a computer with SP1 but with zone alarm and mcaffee anti virus installed. is that any safer? there is a computer here at my office with that combination, should we be worried or is this secure?
I’m sorry to say, but already question “should we be worried or is this secure?” means that this is not secure.
From other side, this question indicates that you think about security and this itself is already halfway to much secure system. 100% security is not possible (unless you’re dead).
About zonealarm.
If you have firewall(+NAT) in your office, then ZA is relatively safe (if your other PCs have firewalls either). If your XPSP1 has direct connection to internet, then unfortunately no – at system startup there’s little time slice, when network service is started, but ZA isn’t in action yet. (My home pc got infected this way, ZA just blocked further worm spreading:)
XPSP2 doesn’t enable networking before its’internal firewall is started. AFAIK the only free/lightweight software firewall, what can do the same, is SygatePF (or it was the only about year ago).
About mcaffee – of course it helps, if your PC is used by “nonsecure user”. Like any other AV tools, mcaffee cannot gurantee 100% of safety (viruses/trojans often appear before AV updates); usually little playing with security policy and educating user is more important.
For example – ignorant as I am, I prefer not to run antivirus at all, at least not in background – instead I teach my daughters, what and how to do with PC. Worked well so far:)
Of course this is highly not recommended!
In our group we have use the following crontab entry on all our workstations (Mandrake Linux):
0 0 * * * urpmi –media updates –auto-select –auto
… works like a charm. It’s not a Windows solution, but there must be an equaly straight-forward method for Windows (after all, it’s got a much larger userbase and people willing to pay gobs of cash for a decent software package manager).
Incidentally, this is how we update printer configurations and things too.
The exploits that get to your system only reach it if they first defeat the firewall. If you have a firewall in place, your absolutely fine.
That’s not entirely true. If you are running services and thus have open ports, you still need to check for security updates for those server applications. And before you say that Joe User doesn’t run any services, let me just say one word (well, an acronym, really): P2P.
You have to take into account that the concepts of anti virus and firewall have been completely absorbed by your average user.
That’s a pretty bold assertion. For sure, people are more aware than before of Internet security risks, but a lot of people still believe in the “it only happens to others” mentality. The fact that it still takes less than 15 minutes for an XP pre-SP2 machine to get owned when connected indicates that a LOT of people out there have compromised machines out there.
The truth is that windows is the operating system of choice because it accomplishes the most tasks that the majority of users want to do easily, and there is very little competition (perhaps mac) who is on par with Microsoft.
That’s an entirely different subject altogether, and in my view falls into the “flamebait” category. The truth is that Linux accomplishes most tasks that the majority of users want to do as easily as Windows. Microsoft’s popularity is the direct result of their predatory tactics and is mostly perpetuated by their control of closed file formats (which in my view is clearly an abuse of its monopoly).
However, that has little to do with security. Fact is that, if you have a Linksys router at home, then it is in fact Linux that is keeping you secure…
Zone Alarm is good firewall if you configure it well and you have it up to date.
There is the misconception that a windows box without firewall that is behind a second pc acting as a firewall is better than a single windows box with firewall.
This is absolutelly wrong. Locally instaled firewalls are better because they not only block undesirable packets but they also allow you to block specific apps from accesing the network, this is a very powerful feature. I wish there was an apps that could do this on Linux.
Also, have you perhaps noticed how many times CMD.EXE is referrenced in worms/trojans even today ? any particular reason why that is ?
i haven’t seen Blaster and Sasser source, but it probably uses bind port shellcode or installs a dropper program which sets up a trojan horse. i doubt either worm needs any of the system32 utils to function.
The forgery posted under my name is being reported to your ISP as it is in violation of the agreed upon Terms of Service, specifically: “Forging the header of any transmitted information packet, email, or Usenet posting.”
Sadly, I can guess what distro you use.
well only allowing some apps is a good start but many trojans avoids this by injecting them self into a process wich alredy have acess.
This is absolutelly wrong. Locally instaled firewalls are better because they not only block undesirable packets but they also allow you to block specific apps from accesing the network, this is a very powerful feature.
software firewalls, being software, can be defeated easier than hardware FW. (read up on FW bypass and rootkitting.) so a combo is good.
Redhat 9 and it wasn’t attacked at all? That seems odd to me, maybe that honeypot wasn’t plugged in or something. It’s a cute little publicity stunt.
This article is targeting beginners or just plain normal users not knowing anything about the OS. The steps they mention on how to protect the OS is valid for every system.
The problem with Windows I see is that you hardly have time to update the system before you get hit by one of the viruses or worms. My parents have Windows 2000 on their computer. When blaster came out, it was very hard to get to windows update without beeing first infected. How can those people be protected from such attacks? How? Those people have buyed the system, because someone in the local computer store told them that this is: cheep, easy to use, has mountains of software for that os, etc
And then they buy it and at home when they connect to the internet they get: viruses, trojans, worms, nasty windows pop-up messages, etc… and those people are then lost.
No wonder they are lost!
Can any one tell me why Windows has so much open issues? Don’t tell me that because Windows is so much used, it is more in danger to have errors then other. All the systems have security issues. But Windows mostly has remote exploitable issues where others mostly have local exploitable issues.
If Microsoft wants to be the “Desktop for everyone”, then they should please look how Apple is doing their task with Mac OS X (NO! I am not a Mac user. I am using exclusivly Gentoo Linux on my home computers). It is userfriendly, secure, intuitive, etc… Windows is just the opposite.
In my eyes, everyone using Windows and having trouble with it: Deserves it!
Sorry to be that way. But today you have so much possibility to use differend systems, that you don’t need at home to have Windows. If you need Windows (maybe because you have application xyz which only runs on Windows), then you should be enough trained to KNOW how to use the system. If you don’t know how to use it, then it is only your mistake. The market has enough tools to protect Windows from even the hardest attacks (you could even use more secure system to be a gateway for the connection to the internet and keeping you protected and filtering all the bad stuff out of the internet traffic).
So where is the problem?
Why do Free Software Zealots immediately discount anyone who dares to insult their Holy Operating System of Bliss and Life, without any regard to the facts?
Confront any Linux fanatic with some facts critical of Linux, and he’ll (I’d say “he or she will”, but let’s be honest, females are too smart to use a freeware OS) immediately shift into one of two modes:
1. (If the critique is posted on ZDNet, Microsoft, New York Times, etc) “Well, this is what we’ve come to expect from ZDNet/M$/etc. There’s no need to even look at the facts, because it insults our OS so it’s FUD so it’s wrong. Let’s send a bunch of ‘YOU SUCK YOU SUCKING MORONS’ e-mails to the author of the story and anybody else who wants to hear our rantings, to prove to them that we’re mature and intelligent individuals and won’t tolerate anybody badmouthing our OS.”
2. (If the critique is posted on a message board, newsgroup, etc.) “Guys, this is a troll. Ignore the troll. You can tell he’s a troll because he insults Linux. There’s no need to even look at the facts, because that’s what the troll WANTS us to do. Man, what a great/terrible troll. The trolls lately are really funny/lame. We should congratulate/ban them. The trolls are helping/destroying this message board. Troll, I say, TROLL. We’re too afraid to challenge our own beliefs so we’ll just laugh at/ignore the troll and go back to wanking.”
there was no poing on includint on the test openbsd
Why do Free Software Zealots immediately discount anyone who dares to insult their Holy Operating System of Bliss and Life, without any regard to the facts?
Interesting you should say that, since I don’t spot a single fact anywhere in your post – just a few exaggerated observations.
females are too smart to use a freeware OS
Riiight…. so you’re saying if you’re smart you pay for Windows because you know more than the people who get Linux for free?
And Linux isn’t “freeware”, it’s “free software”. There’s a difference – MSN Messenger or Windows service packs could be described as freeware, since they can be downloaded for “free”, but they are not free software.
1. Ever considered that they may have a point? A lot of studies that pop up on the net like that have dubious methods, and there’s often money floating around behind the scenes.
2. Well that does happen occasionally – but personally I’ve observed a lot more situations where they get intelligent replies as to why Linux is still better – because frankly that’s not a difficult argument to support…
Octa-lamean, I read your entire post looking for something substaniative to refute, and there was nothing there. Please say something intelligible so I can refute your pathetic logic.
You post a lot, but say little. Say something intelligent so that I can hammer you in to non-existence. PLEASE!
I agree to number 2, but most of the time that people claim they are a troll is because they are. Most of the time i see people who create messages like this “Linux sucks because i cant install drivers” or “Linux is crappy” and then they say it sucks because they don’t know how to use it.
Also like most users say “the problem is the users” This is some what true, but the biggest problem is you are connected with xp/2k/me/98 directly to the Internet on a new install making it very vulnerable with out a firewall and major security problems from the get go and it has no recommendation to be a user since they grained it into everyones head that you want to be an admin, most of the time i disconnect my computer whenever i do a new install and install the latest service pack but many others do not know that they should do this. Who would think that their dell needs updates, i mean come on a techy should come over and install them for you.Also like most users say “the problem is the users” This is some what true, but the
“or “Linux is crappy” and then they say it sucks because they don’t know how to use it.”
Funny how this is considered trolling when its said about linux. Yet whenever someone (oddly the same people who also like to claim they have never used windows since ’95 because they switched to linux) says “windows is crappy” everyone chimes in with their half-baked/uninformed opinions as well.
I guess you can’t fight trendy.
after closing down ports in Win- then we`re talking secure as a linux box, but not as secure as a box with se-linux- se security post for RHEL 4; some of the “holes” would not do much in terms of damage
You are right.Nobody can just say that “A particular OS is very crappy”.I have been a Windows user for 8 years from Windows 95 to Windows XP x64 CPP beta 1433 and can say that Windows is crappy but I can also say that Linux is CRAPPIER for a beginner.I couldn’t even connect to the internet with two famous distros (MandrakeLinux 10.1 and Fedora Core 3) but I remember the very first time I started working on a Windows PC I could just create the connection and simply restart and find it working.I hate Linux because it isn’t easy for a beginner(to Unix) to use.Linux users get frustrated on Windows for the very same reason They don’t how to protect their PC against spyware,viruses etc.(I personally think Windows XP SP 2 has been a breakthrough on MS’s side It has patched many vulnerabilities.Also the reason why Windows has most attacks is that more than 90% of the computer user base use it;That must also be taken into consideration).
“…We’re too afraid to challenge our own beliefs so we’ll just laugh at/ignore the troll and go back to wanking. …”
Well, you’re clearly a “master debater” yourself …
Good to see that XP SP2 is OK. One question about SP1 though. If the firewall was turned on would it have been infected. I realise the test was just testing standard installs and the firewall isn’t turned on by default so the results are accurate for the tests taken.
But would SP1 which was releaseed in 2002 be able to sit on the internet with it’s internal firewall on and be safe. Obviously surfing would open the machine up to downloaded spyware, trojans and viruses but that’s another matter.
I couldn’t even connect to the internet with two famous distros (MandrakeLinux 10.1
I’m sorry, but I find that hard to believe. If there’s one thing Linux is good at, it’s networking! What exactly was the problem?
Disclaimer: I have used broadband for years.
Linux users get frustrated on Windows for the very same reason
Actually I (sometimes) get frustrated with Windows for different reasons. What you’ve got to realize is that most Linux users (like me) are also experienced Windows users – we don’t have much of a choice, as Windows is everywhere.
As both a expert Windows user and an intermediate Linux user/admin, I have to say that IMHO Linux is a better OS. Technologically they are about the same, but one is the product of an abusive monopoly, while the other is the product of a large and varied community. One is built on closed source, closed file formats and hijacked standards, the other is built on open source, formats and standards. One has created a subculture of piracy (or encouraged it to grow, anyhow), while the other has created a culture of sharing and collaboration.
Now, these are philosophical and political arguments, for sure. However, no Linux distro was ever as vulnerable as to be automatically hacked 15 minutes after being connected to the Internet in its default install. No matter the progress made by Microsoft in that regard, this will remain a shameful accomplishment for quite some years to come.
Peace.
On Red Hat 9’s number of attacks (zero), this leads us to two possibilities:
(1) Red Hat 9 is invulnerable; or,
(2) Red Hat sucks so badly that not even malicious crackers want to touch it.
Take your pick.
No OS can be hijacked automatically on its default install and connecting to the internet.When of course you bombard hundreds of attacks on it does it fret in 15 minutes.Linux can’t be bombarded that way because the no. of viruses and spyware is less and even 16 viruses is cosidered a good no.(Although I like Linux’s file permissions etc. There are also some things on windows that cant be compromised for ).
And about that problem with connecting to internet my ISP provides me only with a Service Name and no other information (I use pppoe).In both the distros it was impossible to enter th service name.
Also in Mandrake Linux the system could not access the hardware clock in any way(Its a known fault) and I had to add rtc to modules in /etc.Still it wasn’t like windows.
So I hated that thing.It was much easier to get started with windows and install antivirus,anti-spyware,firewall and be a happy user all the time I used Windows.
First off, if you’re claiming to have installed Windows 95, and got on the ‘net immediately, then you are either lying or remembering incorrectly. Windows 95 was a worthless pile of garbage when it came to networking. Out of the box, it was almost incapable of actually connecting to an ISP, and certainly not without playing around with a load of settings that don’t really make any sense, or doing the Windows equivalent of jiggling the handle, and hoping it would work this time.
Second, a fresh installation Windows XP SP1 will be compromised within minutes if you connect it directly to the ‘net. Tada! The system has been hijacked automatically with a default installation. The same is true of Windows 2000. By contrast, XP SP2 has a proper firewall (enabled by default), and all major Linux distributions have included a proper firewall (enabled by default), and no network services running (making the firewall redundant) for at least five years, possibly longer. Those Linux boxes, or the SP2 system, can not be compromised remotely and automatically. It is not possible, since no outside program can connect to the system (and in the case of most Linux systems, there is nothing to connect to).
As for the Linux thing… First off, your ISP is being weird. You should not need to enter anything under service name. With a proper, well behaved ISP, you won’t have such troubles, and everything should just work.
Second, if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Did you ever think to… you know… actually tell anyone about it? Not just bitch and moan on OSNews, but to actually file a bug report? Unless people supply feedback, how are developers supposed to know there’s a problem? If you had, this issue would likely have been fixed almost immediately.
Seriously, if “My internet doesn’t work! Waaaah!” is the best excuse for “I hate Linux” that you can come up with, you really can’t be trying very hard.
And of course it’s not like Windows. Thankfully.
>well only allowing some apps is a good start but many trojans avoids this by injecting them self into a process wich alredy have acess.
If you have used a windows firewall receently you would know that most have solved this issue.
No OS can be hijacked automatically on its default install and connecting to the internet.
Windows XP pre-SP 2 will get owned within minutes if a default installed is connected to the Internet:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/54201306
And about that problem with connecting to internet my ISP provides me only with a Service Name and no other information (I use pppoe).In both the distros it was impossible to enter th service name.
That’s strange…You mean a domain name? What ISP were you using? Are you using a DSL modem? Did you try using DHCP?
Also in Mandrake Linux the system could not access the hardware clock in any way(Its a known fault)
Huh? My Mandrake 10.1 system has no problem accessing the hardware clock. Do you have an exotic motherboard?
So I hated that thing.It was much easier to get started with windows and install antivirus,anti-spyware,firewall and be a happy user all the time I used Windows.
Well, when I installed Mandrakelinux 10.1 on my PC, it connected automatically to the Internet at the end of installation. I literally didn’t have to do anything (the joy of DHCP), and of course I didn’t have to install any additional software to remain safe.
Good to see that XP SP2 is OK. One question about SP1 though. If the firewall was turned on would it have been infected. I realise the test was just testing standard installs and the firewall isn’t turned on by default so the results are accurate for the tests taken.
But would SP1 which was releaseed in 2002 be able to sit on the internet with it’s internal firewall on and be safe.
Not completely. (Well, depend on connection type – but assume direct connection.)
Same problem as with many SW firewalls – while booting XP(SP1), network service can be started before firewall, what creates short time slice, when PC is vulnerable.
Of course such computer would be much more secure than default XP(SP1) installation.
Like someone above posted – best for XP is to use combination of software and hardware firewalls.
I wonder how much that 18 minute time depends on which ISP you use.
Judging by my firewall logs it would have taken much, much less if they’d hooked it up to my ISP.
Before I got bored and quit logging hits I was reading something like one Sasser hit every 2 seconds (Logs got very big very quickly).
The sheer amount of bad traffic and portscans is ridiculous. I don’t know how much is just general internet background noise, but it’s a jungle out there, sometimes I think the whole net will just get submerged in this tidal wave of malicious/undesired traffic.
***
I had similar SSH logs when I used to allow remote connections. After digging around various boards things pointed to the SSH hits being from a few compromised RH 5 boxes. Apparently there’s an automated search for systems with some default user/pass combinations, then the actual attack is performed manually (Install rootkit, etc). Doubt it’s anything to worry about for a recent Linux system.
//100% security is not possible (unless you’re dead).//
Geez, that’s rather draconian. So I gotta be deceased in order for my PC to be 100% secure? What if I just disconnect it from the Internet?
i havnt used windows at home for two years. thanks to microsofts decade release cycle, i still have a decent amount of experience with their latest version. not only that, but i am not given a choice of os at work, here its all windows. once again, plenty of experience. its BECAUSE of having to use it on a daily basis that i have developed a deep and abiding hatred of it.
and its not just windows, or timesheet system is another piece of spectacularily unusable software im forced to deal with, that i hate with a passion. and then there is scopus, which is a horrendous bug tracking system. oh, and i cant forget my long time nemesis, pvcs, the versioning system from hell.
i dont like using badly designed software. if i am put in a situation where im forced to use it, i will begin to hate it. i would rather use beos then windows, even though im rather indifferent to it, at least it was designed with some logic and intelligence. i would rather use kde then windows, even though i dont really like it too much, once again there is more logic and consistancy then windows.
so anyways, my personal distaste for windows has nothing to do with trends, and its my experience that makes me hate it, not my ignorance (ignorance is bliss as they say ;-)). i have alwas seen windows as a symbol of mediocrity, kind of like the economy ticket on a flight, or that bargin bin software. with each version it does get better, but while they are moving at an incramental rate, everyone else around them moves at an exponential rate. why is it that the biggest software company in the world needs ten years to catch up to the technology that apple uses? why is it that linux environments can progress more in a year then windows can in five? theres no real excuse for this, other then that its a company that has alwas been about more marketing hype and sales pitch then quality.