On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Chuck Urwiler wrote:
> I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I have to ask this
> question
> since you all know Linux better than I do.
>
> Do you guys think that a Linux box would be "more secure" in this
> regard, or
> is this just a symptom of the dominance of Windows boxen on the market?
It's not a simple answer. Any idiot can set up an insecure box. That's
nearly as easy on Linux as Windows!
Windows typically runs as Administrator ("root") and so any executable
can do anything to the box. Running as root is strongly discouraged in
Linux.
Linux has better-enforced permissions at the file level to prevent a
rogue process from taking over the machine or accessing inappropriate
resources. Corporate Windows boxes tend to be locked down better that
consumer Windows boxes but it's not an easy process.
OTOH, the common Windows attacks of "viruses" are pretty much snubbed
by Linux by design. However, worms and trojans and rootkits are a real
threat - there are attacks out there in the wild.
If you set up a Linux box for Aunt Tilly, tighten it down with good
firewall settings and policy, set it to auto-update, and email the logs
to someone who'll read them, there's no question that the box would be
much more secure.
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
©2004 Ted Roche |
