Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans <skip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
completely secure, especially when placed in the hands of the
end-user. Believing that the statement is inaccurate is not only
dangerous, but is also tantamount to saying, "people of African decent
have inherently thicker skulls than caucasians, so they will fair
better when shot in the cranium with a pistol." I'll elaborate more
on why it's ultimately not an OS issue at the end of this email.
I'd also reckon that most OS's are made 1000 times more vunerable by the
apps installed and the user configs applied - even the old "permissions
problems, just 777 it" thats so common amongst web devs. Fact is if you
want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from the internet,
remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
Here are some links to good articles written by far more qualified
individuals than myself.
http://nnucomputerwhiz.com/linux-virus.html
Not only do I wholeheartedly disagree with Stone's summary
statement (at the link above) regarding susceptibility, it is easily
countered by a simple fact: open source systems such as Linux mean
that the source can be viewed and exploits discovered, rather than
through reverse-engineering, decompilation, or brute-force
trial-and-error tactics.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus3
This is a well-formed essay, and supports my statement below as well.
Full disclosure: I run Ubuntu Linux for workstations, FreeBSD Unix for
servers, and have a Mac running OS X for testing Safari, and use Windows
only for testing IE and specific Windows software.
I'm in the Mandrake/Mandriva camp for desktops, CentOS and my own
proprietary Linux (nicknamed "Intrinsic Linux" since I started
building it) for servers, and then the necessary-evil XP and Vista
boxes for testing and other such things.
I much prefer a well set up *Nix system to Windows any day.
I certainly wish there were more like you! And here's why - as
well as to explain my statement as to why ALL operating systems are
equally susceptible:
I've found a nice little balance for my desktop; vista with ubuntu &
centos running as virtual boxes - means I can have call of duty 5 and
eclipse running at the same time whilst one virtual box runs my
apache/tomcat/mysql and the other runs apache/jboss/postgres with
several php deamons running too. best of all worlds not being limited to
one OS - so I'm firmly in both camps (but nix only for servers)
Knowledge, skill, and experience of the end-user.
Common sense tells us that a logical system would not willingly
infect itself. The same cannot be said for the parasites that attach
themselves to the system's keyboards. The most perfect system in the
world can be easily crippled by placing a biological connector between
the input devices and the chair.
Further, a classification of malware: any software that is written
with malicious intent.
Very basic, below-entry-level *NIX malware programming:
#!/bin/bash
rm -fR /
You would know not to run that as root, of course. If your skill
was not of a level where you could reason the difference between good
and bad, you would expect the "computer" to differentiate "good" and
"bad" code as a means of self-preservation. Should you then be
convinced to run that code using simple social engineering tactics
("Skip, this file will ensure that all of your software is up-to-date
by running `rm` on the system, which is the UNIX Release Manager."),
you may well defeat any security and "intelligence" the system has in
place. This is a VERY simple explanation, of course, but is in place
to show the fundamentals of computer security --- when a system is in
place to ultimately interact with a person - even indirectly - that
system is vulnerable, regardless of architecture.
nice point to raise; my personal pet peeve is the human worm; chain
emails - I'd class them worse than spam and worms put together "make a
wish and forward this to 50 people" and they do it.
The most important things to remember: the most "intelligent" of
computer systems can be defeated by the most simplistic and inept of
apes; if and when systems are able to develop their own free will to
override basic logic, they will begin to defeat themselves.
Keeping in mind that all viruses, worms, and other malware are
nothing more than automated cracks ("hacks" would be grossly abused if
used in this context), it would be to say that *NIX systems are far
less hackable than Windows systems. Now compare these four statements
for the correlation:
* The term "hacking" is most commonly affiliated with Internet
systems such as web and electronic mail servers.
* The majority of web and email servers utilize a POSIX
(*NIX)-like operating system.
* The term "computer virus" (generalizing the term) is most
commonly affiliated with desktop systems.
* The majority of desktop systems utilize a Microsoft Windows
operating system.
In summary, it's not the operating system that is more secure once
it's in use, it's the knowledge of the person managing that operating
system, coupling their skill and diligence. All operating systems are
susceptible to attack; it's the responsibility of the operator to
ensure that this exposure is limited.
On a final note, I watched a documentary this morning that my wife
recorded for me on 42 attempts on Hitler's life (I have always been a
WWII buff, though I'm glad to have been born well after the era). In
those 42 recorded assassination attempts, fate was the only thing that
saved him. There was a surprisingly lackluster security staff
surrounding (at the time) one of Earth's most influential and powerful
men. Had it not been for pure happenstance, there may never have been
a second World War. What finally brought an end to Hitler, as best we
know, was something at least 42 serious attempts failed to control:
his own hand. It wasn't security that preserved his life for its
duration, it was chance. The difference here is that humans have
chance based on an infinite collective of influences, whereby
computers - wonderfully predictable as they are thus far - have only
man to blame. Someday there will be a mathematical anomaly, I'm sure,
that will eventually lead to a level of cognition, but we're not there
yet. So any computer can be destroyed with a well-executed
assassination attempt, regardless of its security and the complexity
of the attack, because we're the ones who still control their
destinies.
(Pardon the philosophical stuff.... I just kept banging on the
keyboard until my cup of coffee ran dry.)
have you seen valkyrie yet? watched it a couple of days ago and it was
rather good (but not great)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
