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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200705140406.05356.admin@digibase.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 04:06:04 -0400
From: Kradorex Xeron <admin@...ibase.ca>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Linux big bang theory....

On Monday 14 May 2007 01:46, Just1n T1mberlake wrote:
> > scott wrote:
> > > Evidently you need more experience in security research:
> > >> http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/
> > >
> > > I believe this should dispel your myth about OSX's invulnerability.
> > > Really...did you honestly believe it was invincible?
> > >
> > > Regards
>
> Of course no operating system is invincible when you have full access
> to the machine. You could just delete all of the files yourself.
> OSX isn't using all of the tricks like windows does to try and hide
> executables throughout dlls and other such files. Ever heard of dll
> hell? No wonder these machines are broken into so often.
> The point is what would you rather have 1000 windows machines 1000
> linux machines or 1000 OSX machines? If you wanted to not be infected
> I'd be taking the OSX machines for sure, otherwise if you want to get
> these kind of kernel rootkit tricks of JOquendo or something like
> rhosts for your life then you would choose one of the linux
> distributions.
> What next are you going to virtualise this and run them all on the
> same host? Frankly, it really doesnt matter what your guest server is
> running if your host is broken :-)

Your points are moot.

The only reason OSX is "so good" security wise, is because the OS doesn't give 
open administrator access to the users, preventing the dumbness of the 
uninteligent users from screwing up the OS in the conventional sense, I bet 
the instant you introduce "administrative privs" into OSX, you'd get security 
breaches galore. 

To put it bluntly: OSX Treats it's users like they're in a playpen, trying not 
to expose the users to the "real world"

It's the DUMB USERS who are the security risks. NOT the OS the majority of the 
time. If you left a Windows machine running, with a competent user, it will 
have a lower risk of becoming infected/rooted  than if you parked a clueless 
user in front of the machine.

Same with Linux, park a stupid superuser in front of the machine, you will of 
coruse you'll get stupid results. However, if you get a competent superuser 
that only uses "root" for admin tasks only and doesn't do anything 
exparamental under root on a production machine, as well as not give users 
any more permission than they need, you'd be set.

So what are we trying to do? protect the OS from what? or protect the users 
from making idiotic decisions that will screw up their boxes?

Remember folks: Computers only operate as good as those who operate them.

>
> --
> Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing." - Vincent Lombardi

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