On Tue, 2001-09-18 at 17:30, Peter Mueller wrote:
> > default install of popular Linux distributions.
>
> As you know default installs are not considered secure by anyone in the
> security business. They are not a measure of security in any way shape or
> form.
For those interested, we recently had an in depth conversation on our
local LUG mailing list about this very thing. You can read the thread
at:
http://www.brlug.net/archives/brluglist/0748.shtml
The thread starts slow, but I think we covered a lot.
> > Don't get me wrong, I run *a lot* more Linux servers than NT servers
> > over here, but I think it's misleading when someone states simply that
> > Linux "is more secure" or "has better security." What does that mean?
>
> It is far easier to replicate security settings on *nix boxes than on
> windows. It is a *pain* to run packet filtering on NT boxes (you have to
True. Very true. Yet, let's not forget that NT does give you the
ability to script some solutions as well, which includes adjusting file
and registry permissions both locally and from a remote machine. But
yes, copying existing settings is non-trivial.
> get some $$ app!), and 2000 has RRAS/steelhead which you can't even specify
> ranges on! By comparison Linux now includes ip tables/ip chains and both of
> those products are definitely superior to RRAS.
>
> I think 2000 has taken great leaps and bounds over NT. It's actually
> feasible. The rebooting after patching security holes is a pain, but at
> least you can use windows update..
I see Windows 2000 as an improvement as well.
> cheers Dustin & company.
Cheers back at ya.
Regards, Dustin
--
Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
