full-disclosure - Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: daniele at muscetta.com (Daniele Muscetta)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?

Ron DuFresne said:
> 	[SNIP]
>> This is not meant as an attempt to diminish BSD strenght.
>> I also have an OpenBSD box on the internet, and it is awesome.
>> The choice of shipping LESS software by default is a very wise one
>> (and many linux distros in this regard are copying windows too much,
>> enabling everything by default to facilitate the user - and the
>> cracker). With 'smaller market penetration' I don't want to say that
>> that code is less  looked at (most likely it is indeed better code),
>> but mainly that the crackers go usually after QUANTITY: they search to
>> compromise AS MANY boxes as possible.... so they go after the most
>> used OSes. IMHO, of course.This has been shown in the increase of
>> linux compromises, anyway.... Why should they bother having a hard
>> time trying to compromise a super-hardened BSD box which belongs to a
>> savvy admin (who's most likely going to spot them soon if they
>> succeed), rather then just trying to shoot their exploits against
>> everything, and hope to get as many as possible ?
>>
>
> That's an admin/installer issue, tooo many folks on too many OS'es tend
> to install the kitchen sink on systems that don't need all the toys
> trinkets and tools that a desktop developer might need in specific
> circumstances.
>
> While redhat has become the linux version of M$ in all the neato
> desktop trinkets it has available, the admin doing the install needs to
> have enough whits about them to know how to trim the fat and lock the
> box for the purpose it is being  comisioned for.  Too many web servers
> exposed to the public have too many desktop trinkets and X window
> managers that are not required for the purpose at hand.

Look: I am in perfect agreement with you, we are *not* saying anything
different !
The same savvy admin I mentioned is the one that would harden (and keep
the installed software to a minimum) not only BSD, but also Linux, and
Windows too !
But not ALL admins/installers are like that. Unfortunately I have to say
that most of them have no clue, and rely too often on default
configurations.... which in turns creates new easy targets....

It definitely is an installer/admin issue.
But on any OS :)

I *definitely* prefer the approach where you don't have anything and you
build the system from the ground up (debian, gentoo, BSD for example).
But the same clueless installer who will leave the dafault bells and
whistles on redhat and on windows..... is the one who could not even
INSTALL BSD in the first place.... so here we are again....It's a vicious circle....

Kind Regards,

Daniele