RE: Security followup

[Peter Lucas <peterlucas -at- decadesoftware -dot- com>]

Andrew,

I just have to briefly chime in on this. I'm a tech writer/net admin at my
company (mostly tech writer), and I was also under the impression that Linux
was "much" more secure based mostly on what I read on the Internet and at
Slashdot. We are a Windows shop here, but just last week I had to install
Linux on a PC here for testing purposes. It was interesting because it gave
me a chance to see what all the commotion was regarding Linux. (I had never
seen it until last week.)

I was tasked with setting up Red Hat Linux 7.3, Apache, MySQL, and then
configuring the FTP server. As I scoured the Internet and also Red Hat's web
site, I was just blown away by all the security warnings and patches that
were available for the OS and each product. As a matter of fact, MySQL 3.23
was patched for a security vulnerability and the patch disabled a feature we
were using!

Man did that open my eyes. I thought the Linux fanatics really had some
solid ground for a while, but now I'm beginning to think they aren't much
better than the legions of Mac zombies out there (...all praise Steve
Jobs...). Perhaps there is some significance to the fact Mac OS X added
support for Linux/Unix...hmm...conspiracy? Invasion of the body snatchers?

At least most of us Windows users admit there are problems and do what we
can to fix them. Like you say, an OS or app is only as good as the person
setting it up.

We've had Norton Anti-Virus for the desktop and MS Exchange for some time
now along with MS SMS to push down updates to the workstations, and we
haven't had a single problem with a virus. Norton intercepts stuff all the
time, but it's never compromised a workstation. We also got a hardware
firewall before it was fashionable to do so.

Peter Lucas

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Plato [mailto:gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:16 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Cc: dfgodfrey -at- milmanco -dot- com
Subject: Re: Security followup



"Decker F. Wong-Godfrey" <> wrote 

> I think the real thing to think about here is not the number of 
>  (primarily desktop) windows machines vs. the number of (primarily 
> server) UNIX machines. The thing to think about is, that if all things 
> were equal between the platforms, 

That's a faulty premise. All things are not equal between Windoze and Unix.
Hence any comparison of security between them is almost meaningless, thus
this
discussion is meaningless. (And also off topic.)

> It is not a perception. It is built into the operating system itself. 
> Linux viruses can't do much simply because the system they run on is 
> built to limit the activities of malicious users or malicious programs. 
> It's an inherent part of the system.

This isn't even remotely true, but if you feel more secure using Linux, then
good for you. 

This isn't the forum to have a "my platform is bigger, longer, and harder
than
yours" debate. 

The root fact is: configuration, use, and network environment has a far
greater
impact on a system's security than the platform used. 

Andrew Plato

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A new book on Single Sourcing has been released by William Andrew
Publishing: _Single Sourcing: Building Modular Documentation_
is now available at: http://www.williamandrew.com/titles/1491.html.

Help Authoring Seminar 2003, coming soon to a city near you! Attend this
educational and affordable one-day seminar covering existing and emerging
trends in Help authoring technology. See http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l2.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.