spinynorman Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 (edited) The Register reports an attempt to submerge a slick backdoor in the next version of the Linux kernel. For the geeks amongst us, Kerneltrap.org describes the incident in more detail. Edited November 7, 2003 by spinynorman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezroller Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 hope they catch the bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 That this attempt was quickly found points out the folly of the M$ opinion that Linux is less secure because many people work on it from all over. Once again, Linux's development model proves to be superior in terms of security issues and speed in fixing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 actually its a software that detected it initially. anti-OSS people could use that angle to debunk what jasep said, i think. :unsure: ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah31 Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 That this attempt was quickly found points out the folly of the M$ opinion that Linux is less secure because many people work on it from all over. Once again, Linux's development model proves to be superior in terms of security issues and speed in fixing things. hmmm...so the compromise on the gnu.org servers this did not concern you? it is folly to think that ANY os better than another on security. open source is just faster at fixing them. oh yeah what about the backdoor in the linux kernel a year or so ago? or the exploit of the 2.4 kernel discovered earlier this year? everyone talks about how secure ssh is yet it was found to have serious compromises in the last month or so....most of these had been there for some time. *nixes have been secure and safe mostly because they wre not a force in the desktop world for years. true it is much harder for one to exploit a nix system but it is not impossible nor improbable. so don't for a minute lord security over any other system or that is exactly what will burn the nix worl in the future. complacency is very dangerous thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 *nixes have been secure and safe mostly because they wre not a force in the desktop world for years. true it is much harder for one to exploit a nix system but it is not impossible nor improbable. so don't for a minute lord security over any other system or that is exactly what will burn the nix worl in the future. complacency is very dangerous thing... I don't agree with the first part of this statement at all. Your next statement points out the difference in architecture... which is the bigger reason. Small targets are just as easy to hit as big ones in the eyes of the illegal hacker culture. Exploiting Linux would be a coup for a lot of them. No system is 100% secure. There hasn't been a building or computer system made that can't be broken into. There isn't a material thing of value that can't be stolen. Linux is, however, innately more secure than Windoze though, because of its design. That's not "Lording over," that's observation. Part of the problem is not that Windoze is a bigger target, so much as security in the system is pretty much an after-thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah31 Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 to an extent it is more secure. but what i was getting at is not "the bigger target" theory but higher profile. why hack linux or mac os when they represent only 10 % of users out there? Windows users represent a very large number of users with alot of valuable data. why go after ten people data when you can have 90? security is not an after thought so much as an impossiblity. as fast as MS and independant coders can catch the bugs, etc new ones are found. there are more hackers and crackers trying to hack windows than nix. i am sure if all those hackers turned their attention on the nixes we would find out that security is just as wanting. the more users the nixes get the more difficult it will be to keep the security. if gnu.org servers and kernel.org cvs security can be cracked and not noticed for awhile (in the case of the 2.6 kernel it was not even an astute developer that noticed the hack it was an automatic check that caught it) it does not bode well for nixes to try and maintain that they hold the upper edge in security. like i said before being complacent is very dangerous. right now nixes are a fairly safe product but i hold no illusions that it they are the alcatraz they claim to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linux_learner Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 security is as much a process as it is a design. one must always be vigilant. linux is by design more secure than windows, but if you dont take the time to secure it, then the process breaks down. thats not the problem of the OS, but of the administrator. i have recounted a couple times how i made windows secure. anyone else do that? or know to do that? what about linux? what about commenting out securetty, or telling X to no-listen on tcp, or setttting permissions properly, sticky bits, file attributes? what about having iptables configured properly? an IDS? even with out iptables and IDS, just by setting permissions, sticky bits, file attributes and so on, i can make hacking linux a virtual nightmare. now i am finding out about ip masquerading, ip aliasing, NAT, ipsec, port forwarding and so on. as i said, security is a process. one in which is continually evolving, so you must evolve with it. preferably faster than the hackers. in order to make something secure, you must think like a hacker, and out think the hacker. thats security. windows does have basic design flaws. poor permission structure (user is given administrative priveledges by default). windows uses VBS. the windows update site scans your pc using VBS. most viruses are written in VBS. activeX, while it can be used for good, in the wrong hands its a trojan. activeX gives the signer (the source you got it from) a back door into your pc that you authorised. this signer has administrative priveldges. msn messenger had a security vulnerability due to an activeX problem. IE is tied to the kernel. so if some one causes a buffer overflow, or a virus due to IE macros, or just hacks in to the system, they have access to the kernel itself. linux is modulated. the linux kernel, then X, then the window manager, then the DE, then the apps. thats good security right there. i could go on for quite a while, but my best advise is to get the book "hacking linux exposed second edition". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah31 Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 very good post linux_learner. dealt with it a bit better than i did. it is indeed important to stay vigilant and on top of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Just another thought on this. I don't disagree with the 90% users thing but I don't think its as simple as a single reason. For instance the kudos of hacking linux could be perceived as greater than the kudos of hacking windows which is like a swiss chesse of an OS regarding security. (Although one has to wonder what is clever about the specific item. ) Perhaps another aspect is why people crack... Cracking windows is a major hobby, bordering on fanaticism for some. A large part of this is driven becuase people feel ripped off. When I used WinBlows i had lots of cracked software because I didn't want to pay again for a new version I didn't want becuase I had upgraded windows for a package I did want or becuause I needed Win2K for a different reason and then X,Y,Z wouldn't work anymore etc. At the time I was happy to use the cracks provided by others becuase I couldn't possibly repurchase all the software. Even now I have several Win95's and Win98's etc. I paid for but didn't want. The whole upgrade ONLY or this won't install becuase you already have a version... thing. In fact last time I installed a windows (and gave away the disk I couldn't find the KEY and just cracked it myself, so it looks illegal even though it isn't. Windows just encourages this as a way of life. You can't do anything positive to it therefore people express themselves in cracks and phreaks. A lot of people (me in the old days included) looked positively that there were people cracking Win Apps so we could keep using them. Linux and openSource is different... Firstly, you can do posisitve things and get them included. Secondly, if you do negative things noone looks up to you, its just pointless vandalism. There is no justification in it unlike the justification that you paid for the software but it wont run on your new Windows. I think this is a big diference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaa Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 IMO it is much harder to create an automated exploit or a virus for GNU/Linux thats the important thing about GNU/Linux security. some crackers will always be able to compromise some systems, but it'll not spread like fire. it is also relativly easier to limit the damage of such exploits with GNU/Linux, even for an unexperienced user. a cracker may get normal user access but will find it hard to get root access etc. cheers, Alaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.