Toolkit

Story: Linux servers 'attacked more often'

• 
• 

Yes... From my experience, GNU/Linux systems are more likely to be attacked. It's less secure than Windows when unpatched and more secure when patched. Plus, it's a far more attractive target due to the power of the tools, once inside. Not so much is available in Windows servers.

So many people experiment with GNU/Linux, turning on every service and leaving them unsecured and unpatched. With Windows servers, they are so expensive that they are more likely to be deployed by professionals...not experimenters.

The solution, in my opinion, would be Role-based configuration utilities such as the one I am working on, "Server Roller". By configuring a server according to its basic roles, as opposed to raw services, the system can make safe presumptions for automatic firewalling and/or setting mandatory access controls. Mandatory access controls alone would halt ~99% of all attackers. And yet, it allows experimenters to even more easily try out services.

I've only been working on this project about a week and just applied for a sourceforge account. But I have a few people already offering to collaborate on the project. Perhaps in a few months or half a year, we'll be able to drop those numbers down to a tiny fraction of what they are now.

As per fully patched GNU/Linux servers running minimal services, I think you'll find they are far less likey to be breached.....or attacked than Windows. BSD is safer mainly because it's doesn't get new features nearly as often.....and experimenters largely prefer GNU/Linux.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread