full-disclosure - Re: Linux big bang theory....

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]

Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:55:20 -0700
From: "Derek Buelna" <derekb@...ex.com>
To: "'full-disclosure'" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux big bang theory....

So many people aren't real UNIX sysadmins. Those that are, care about
security and do an adequate job of protecting their systems. Give Linux to
others and it may be more risky then giving them Windows. With Windows, root
kits may be easier for an average user to detect, given the availability of
numerous tools. I would assume the novice Linux users are less prone to
deploying some sort of protection besides maybe updating it and having a
firewall running.

If I was going to have an army of hosts I'd hopefully have a bunch of
different kinds, using different kinds of root kits, in order to minimize
losses if one kind of setup was discovered.

-Derek

http://www.syrex.com

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of J. Oquendo
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:12 PM
To: KJKHyperion; full-disclosure
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Linux big bang theory....

KJKHyperion wrote:
>
>
> why, Windows machines of course, I'm an attacker, not a fool! If you 
> were a terrorist, what would you rather do?
>
> Crash the Twin Towers
> Crash the dollar
>
> There is no such thing as an "attacker". All actions, even such an 
> individual's, are driven by economical considerations.
With this said, if I were an attacker with economics in mind why would I
want to target a machine which has X amount of vendors sifting through the
much of malware and viruses when I could spawn off an semi undetectable
program and KEEP IT THERE without having to wait for the next best thing.

I don't know about your logics on economics, but if I were the attacker and
I was looking for a constant steady stream of revenue, I would go the Linux
route. And if you think for a second that "Boohoo Linux users are more
inclined to be security conscious" then you are the fool here. Of the couple
of thousand of brute force bots I see, none are on Windows.

Whatever though, to each their own mechanisms of thought.
If you truly believe its all fine and dandy and things won't get
progressively worse by giving Linux to inexperienced users, you are in for a
rude awakening. If you haven't stopped to read the facts that malware, *ware
creators are getting more savvy, then you seem to be stuck somewhere in a
world of fantasy.

--
====================================================
J. Oquendo
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g' 

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have
to say something." -- Plato

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/