Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] OS security (was Re: Serial Commnuications)'
William Chops Westfield
[compromised unix systems were used to attack yahoo/etc.]
UNIX systems that where run by incompetent system administrators.
Which would be "most of them", right?
A good sysadmin would never allow that to happen, but the proliferation
of NT has given bosses the idea that any bozo can be an admin. That
just ain't true. System administration requires a lot of knowledge,
skill and time. It is not a part-time job. It involves constant
monitoring of CERT lists, bug-traq, rootshell.com, l0pht, etc. to know
what the latest holes are and plug them immediately.
(I'll take this as an afirmative answer to my question above.) You know, I
don't particularly WANT a full time administrator of the "highly paranoid"
variety running my personal computer. In general, I don't want them
running the group computers I work on, either.
People who use these rootkits are called script-kiddies. [further well
deserved putdowns of this variety of cracker.]
And this would be vastly different than PC virus/etc authors in exactly
what way? I guess in general script-kiddies aren't intentionally
destructive to the extent that most virus authors seem to be...
Windows sucks in many ways, and it's easy to put down for any of a
number of reasons while you forget the ways in which it DOESN'T suck.
If a windows system has as good a sysadmin as a unix system needs to
prevent script-kiddie attacks from succeeding, it doesn't get very many
viruses, either. In fact, it doesn't need a sysadmin that good, it just
needs a moderately careful user and a cheap piece of mass-marketed
anti-virus software. Where's the equivilent of norton anti-virus that
protects my linux system from script-kiddies (and updates itself every
couple days), eh?
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000
, 2001 only
- New search...