Date: 6 May 2004 14:35:27 GMT From: Dave Hinz <davehinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: OT- Heads Up - Sasser plug
On Thu, 06 May 2004 01:24:48 -0300, Dexter J <lamealameadingdongnospamlamelame.org> wrote: > In the unix universe there is no true central authority governing > internode OS, processor or services security access. I'm not sure what you mean - processes, files, and devices have ownership, the important stuff is owned by root and unless root allows other users or processes access, they just plain can't do anything there. > (...Microsoft) > It's cheap desktop *AND* network processing for the price, no matter where > in the world you are - the bath room is always on the side near the door, > the food is usually identically bland and staff is bargoon until they set > the service manual alight in the fryer from the boredom. ...and the key is invariably under the doormat, another in the mailbox, and the doors that you didn't know you had are left wide open. > Anyway this compromise has it's own upsides and downsides as befits the > compromise. But thusly, it is often treated as 'cheap' by managers and > owners who have been repeatedly assured that they don't have to pay real > experienced System Admins to configure and maintain their systems. Mostly > - 'everybody knows how to use Word' - particularly in the executive wing. Which is particularly frustrating when techies try to point out "yes, everyone knows how to use Word's 10% of features they use. Those same 10% of features work exactly the same way in, say, OpenOffice on a Linux box, with zero retraining for even the most non-technical user". A few years ago, this was a non-starter of a discussion, today it's getting much easier. We've found that a Linux desktop, even (and especially) for non-technical people, is easier for them to use mainly because they can't screw things up. We give them a Citrix session off to the terminal server so they can have a Windows window on their screen if they want, but for displays, server mounts, and browsing, there's no reason to leave the Linux desktop. > Breaking into a Unix workstation the right way will allow you to read > stuff you shouldn't and do damage to whatever extent the victim has rights > on it's grid and however creatively the grid is administered and created. Well, sure, if you become root on a Unix box you can do everything. I guess the distinction is that that's the exception, rather than for instance Windows XP which creates the first user as admin (ok, makes sense), but also any _additional_ users default to full admin ("root") rights. > The same may be said of MAC-OS/Redhat one day - to the extent system > administrators/home owners/teenagers really open the gates on the stack - > for mostly the same reason. Not really, MacOS and Redhat are Unix systems, so the profound architectural differences still come into play. > My workstation server has sailed through all the plagues including Code > Red. I've run my W2K workstation as a permanent IP on the public Internet > without resorting to a firewall for almost four years now. Based on my personal experience, you're the exception rather than the rule. I think that systems which aren't administered properly (yes, it's a home PC, but people should but don't take responsibility) are the biggest problem. The architecture makes it possible, but most of these worms happen _after_ the patches have been out for a while. > It hasn't fallen over dead yet - though some of my brother SAAB > flagellants have no doubt done so by now. Quick - someone poke Grunff > before he drowns snoring in the soup touraine!.. :) .. I think he dozed off a few posts ago. > Anyway - I have made a point of investing the time to really understand > exactly what W2K was doing on the network and what the network was trying > to do to it - and then revised and/or replaced things that made me nervous > before they became a problem - and it all works just great actually. It > lets me know if something isn't right long before it blue screens so I can > check around to see what happening and fix it. Yup, you're definately not a typical Windows person. You'd do well on the unix side, my friend... > How's that for a rant!.. :) .. To much logic, not enough froth at the mouth. If you're going to rant properly, you have to throw in some sort of "Oh, and Unix is dead" or something. I mean, I haven't even been _tempted_ to bring up the cliche' stuff about windows in response to your post. It's more of a discussion than a rant, I'm afraid. You windows people are always like that, you know. Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
