DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows ; Alan Connor wrote (in part): > What percentage of *nix machines were compromised in the last 5 years > compared to the same figure for M$? > Now that is a good question. What is the answer? -- .~. Jean-David ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 195

Thread: DDOS attack Microsoft

  1. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Alan Connor wrote (in part):

    > What percentage of *nix machines were compromised in the last 5 years
    > compared to the same figure for M$?
    >

    Now that is a good question. What is the answer?

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 7:10am up 17 days, 16:36, 2 users, load average: 2.12, 2.14, 2.13


  2. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    User wrote:

    > "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    > news:dDU6b.3318$Yt.492@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
    >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 04:34:14 GMT, User wrote:
    >> >
    >> > On the other hand I cannot see anything in the basic security models
    >> > to suggest that linux [in general] is better than windows for
    >> > security nor

    > is
    >> > there many more security / critical updates for windows than linux
    >> > which would suggest buggier code.
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes. I can well understand why YOU "...cannot see anything in the basic
    >> security model.....".
    >>
    >>
    >> Because you obviously know nothing about *nix.
    >>
    >>
    >> Any newbie could tell you that the 'security model' in *nix begins with
    >> the system of file ownerships and permissions.

    >
    > I guess you have just demonstrated your ignorance of NTFS.


    Which happened to help not the slightest against all those viruses and
    worms.
    You have just demonstrated that you equate 50.000 viruses of windows
    against 7 for linux, all of which aren't even in the wild
    --
    Who the **** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?


  3. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    newsan.2003.09.08.08.31.51.245397@socal.rr.com...
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 06:24:59 +0000, User wrote:
    >
    > > Most windows users would have a clew what a TCP
    > > packet consists of. And why should they? they probably have a life and

    do
    > > real jobs that create things, remove blockages in our hearts or even

    remove
    > > our garbage for us. Why put people down because they have different

    life
    > > experience and different knowledge base? I hope no one suggests these
    > > people should be barred from using the internet at all.

    >
    > If they're doing it at the office, then someone computer-literate should
    > be paid to keep tabs on such thing. (Dedicated IT department for big
    > businesses; on-demand consultants for small.) If they're doing it at
    > home, well, they still ought to ask a friend for help or something.


    That would be good in an ideal world. For a small business like a shop its
    somewhat impractical in many cases to wait until "the computer guy fits me
    in the day after tomorrow" to get things going again. It could ruin the
    reputation of a shop or other small business dealing with customers. "On
    demand" consultants usually mean "when I get to it" around here.

    Furthermore there are no linux/unix consultants within 50 miles as far as I
    know, linux consultants charge like its the end of the earth - each linux
    flavour is very different to the other to set up and run. [I would not let
    the windows consultants around here touch any windows machines after what
    they did to my last one]. In my experience the level of expertise from many
    IT consultants could be improved.

    Most companies just have windows networks because they simply work. Plug it
    in and it goes. If it doesn't put in the driver disk and follow a few
    pretty pictures in a small sheet and then it goes. You don't have to bother
    with calling out computer consultants who will charge you $400 [plus travel
    and accomodation costs] to install a $100 printer on the network - when they
    get around to it.




  4. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article ,
    alanconnor@earthlink.net says...
    > Because you obviously know nothing about *nix.


    We could tell you the same about Windows - you must not know ANYTHING
    about windows if you don't know how to secure it.

    > Any newbie could tell you that the 'security model' in *nix begins with
    > the system of file ownerships and permissions.


    Same in Windows - in fact, if you don't understand this in ANY OS you
    should not be installing it. The base install of most OS's doesn't do
    much for permissions.

    > And, perhaps, ends with tools that allow users to access
    > the kernel network packet handling system, commonly used to setup firewalls.
    > Iptables would be one of the best of these.


    You can easily setup IP filters in Windows 2000 and XP - it's been there
    for years. You can pick which ports you want to use.

    Simple NAT devices make the best front end for any computer system
    connected to the net - cheaper to operate, less prone to
    misconfiguration, smaller foot-print, and can be installed in a safe
    manner by ANYONE without having to know anything.

    > Should you have actually bothered to educate yourself on the matter, rather
    > than just posting pure garbage, you would have discovered in short order
    > that there are varieties of *nix that basically CANNOT be compromised, that
    > are typically used for firewalls. OpenBSD would be one of them.


    It seems as though you are the one that needs to be educated - you seem
    to have this misconception that all flavors of Unix (which is the way it
    was spelled in the old days, yea some use the slang of Nix, but Unix and
    Linux are not the same, but have some of the same look/feel).

    > What percentage of *nix machines were compromised in the last 5 years
    > compared to the same figure for M$?


    Better yet, ask yourself, what percentage of machines managed by the
    same level of experience were compromised? Since most people can't
    install a "nix" machine let alone build a computer, you should be doing
    an apples-apples view here.

    I have involvement with more than 4700 windows based computers during
    the last 5 years and not one of them was compromised - that's because
    the departments in charge of them understood how to protect the OS and
    Users. It's fairly easy to do - not just on Windows, but on Unix
    platforms (and I will continue to call it Unix since I was using Unix
    before you were born in all likelihood - Since the late 70's).

    Let see, the Open Source Community had some of it's source files hacked
    on it's main server during the last five years - there was a big article
    about this. Open Source is only as secure as the people building the
    OS/Articles. And Open Source is NOT the only source of Unix platforms.

    How about this one on 6/26/2002 - OpenSSH vulnerability
    http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0626015132.htm

    How about this - a security hack that only hit Linux!
    11/13/2002: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-30.html
    The Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute’s CERT Internet
    security website on Wednesday issued a significant advisory for users of
    two very common computer security programs. Those running Microsoft
    NT/2000 servers were unaffected as the CERT advisory pertained to those
    running servers with the open source Linux operating system.

    Here's an interesting bit of info that points to the root problem of
    Open Source:

    How could this happen? A benevolent volunteer contributing code for
    popular and vital open source security programs turns out to be a
    hacker? Yes, that’s precisely what happens when there is real
    accountability when it comes to open source/Linux security. Just in the
    past few weeks major open source/Linux programs like Sendmail (often
    cited by Linux fans as the most popular e-mail server programs used by
    Internet Service Providers), Sunmail, OpenSSH and (ironically) the
    hacker tool Fragroute have all been compromised with viral “Trojan
    horse” code contributed by volunteer programmers which was then
    pragmatically implemented into the program with a surprising amount of
    ease. Chris Klaus, co-founder and CTO of Internet Security Systems,
    summed up this problem noting that “an enormous amount of
    vulnerabilities are appearing in Linux. Because it’s open source
    anybody can contribute code to it – there’s no central authority doing
    security for any new code added.”

    While I'm sure that most of the Open Source, since the code is provided,
    is checked by many people, it does tend to get into the open quickly,
    before being checked, and does cause problems.

    All OS's have this problem, the difference between them is that most
    vendors are the sole source of their OS.

    It's amazing how the "nix" community of zealots can take simple numbers
    and make them say anything they want - same could be done by the people
    that are not stuck on one platform.

    > Enjoy your well-deserved Blue Screen of Death.


    I've not seen a BSOD (real computer users never call it Blue Screen of
    Death - they use BSOD - ha ha ha) in more than 2 years on servers or
    workstations.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  5. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    I don't think anyone will ever admit to their linux box being compramised to
    the linux community.

    The linux community usually berates the person if they announce it.

    You will never get an accruate measure.

    Further more I do not think it is necessarily a good measure of the inherent
    security of the system. Rather it may be a good measure of the average
    technical competence of the person running the machine.

    If you have a look at "how many successful _different_ exploits allowed
    successful compramises on _properly administered_ windows servers compared
    with linux servers?" it would give a better indication of the inherent
    security flaws in the operating system itself. This is the sort of question
    I would like to see answered.

    Looking at raw numbers or raw ratios is obviously just looking at the volume
    and types of users.

    "Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
    news:3F5C63D5.9060607@exit109.com...
    > Alan Connor wrote (in part):
    >
    > > What percentage of *nix machines were compromised in the last 5 years
    > > compared to the same figure for M$?
    > >

    > Now that is a good question. What is the answer?
    >
    > --
    > .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    > /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
    > /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    > ^^-^^ 7:10am up 17 days, 16:36, 2 users, load average: 2.12, 2.14, 2.13
    >




  6. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Leythos" wrote in message
    news:MPG.19c636ba1225fd1e989c18@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article ,
    > alanconnor@earthlink.net says...
    > > Because you obviously know nothing about *nix.

    [snip]
    > It's amazing how the "nix" community of zealots can take simple numbers
    > and make them say anything they want - same could be done by the people
    > that are not stuck on one platform.


    Yes - using that silly measure the TRS-80 must be one of the most secure
    platforms available. We all should rush out and get one. I have never
    heard of a single TRS-80 being compramised in the last five years.

    > --
    > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)




  7. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article <3F5C5FBF.1070607@exit109.com>, jdbeyer@exit109.com says...
    > I think the main thing in the security model _that is fairly obvious_ is
    > that users are segregated from one another by the OS so no user can
    > affect another (except denial of service which seldom affects security,
    > but causes only inconvenience) unless the affected user arranges this in
    > advance.


    I've seen something like this in several posts - where any MS user can
    effect all MS users. If you were to follow standard security methods of
    the MS platforms, all users would be just "users" and not have any
    Admin/Power User/System rights. This would keep most users from doing
    anything to any other user. As in Unix, only a few users have Root or
    Administrator permissions - and only a fool runs as a member of the
    Administrators group when not needed.

    The problem is not with security or the OS, it's with the type of people
    using the platforms. I would stay that people running a Unix based
    system (any flavor) are, in general, many levels above the typical MS
    user when it comes to hardware, development, and installation of the OS
    - including security. At the same time, putting a Unix Admin and a MS
    Admin on machines (where each understands their OS) would yield equally
    secure systems and equally stable platforms. Don't tell me how unstable
    Windows is, I've had servers run Windows Nt4 Sp3 for more than 2 years
    without being rebooted (as domain controllers), and then only rebooted
    to apply service packs).

    Where we run into problems as a community (computer people, not specific
    to an OS) is that there are many computer users that don't have a clue
    as to what they are using or doing.

    Take your typical noob that installs ANY OS that they can get their
    hands on (that makes it Windows or one of the personal Unix flavors
    since SCO and AIX are not free), in general it will not be a secure
    installation, and if he does manage to secure it, chances are that he's
    also broken some functionality. This same person will not take the time
    to learn the specifics of the OS, just enough to install it, get it
    running, and then complain when it doesn't work well or when they get
    hacked. This happens to the zillions of MS users out there too.

    In the old days you had to understand your OS, your hardware, your
    connectivity, and you were able to protect it because you understood it
    (even if it was a MS OS).

    It doesn't matter what platform you use, they are all vulnerable if not
    properly secured.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  8. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Connor wrote:

    > Yes, I always spot bull****ters (your spelling of UNIX as "Unix" gave you
    > away: No UNIX professional would ever do that.)


    Christ, Alan, get a grip! I've been working on UNIX system for over
    14 years now and I occasionally go the Unix route. Criminey; I almost
    came to your defense a post back.

    But, WTH, since I'm in your killfile, you won't see this anyway, right?

    Jesus, another damn troll message...

    Side note: As someone else recently posted in a reply to Zippy's
    messages:

    \|||/
    (o o)
    ,----ooO--(_)-------.
    | Please |
    | don't feed the |
    | TROLLs ! |
    | |
    | - The Management |
    '--------------Ooo--'
    |__|__|
    || ||
    ooO Ooo JW




    --------
    Senior UNIX Admin
    O'Leary Computer Enterprises
    dkoleary@attbi.com (w) 630-904-6098 (c) 630-248-2749
    resume: http://home.attbi.com/~dkoleary/resume.html

  9. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article , dkoleary@attbi.com
    says...
    > In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Connor wrote:
    >
    > > Yes, I always spot bull****ters (your spelling of UNIX as "Unix" gave you
    > > away: No UNIX professional would ever do that.)

    >
    > Christ, Alan, get a grip! I've been working on UNIX system for over
    > 14 years now and I occasionally go the Unix route. Criminey; I almost
    > came to your defense a post back.


    I thought it was funny too - I've been working with Unix since the late
    70's and he thought I should have typed Nix! That's when I lost any
    respect for him

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  10. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    > > It's amazing how the "nix" community of zealots can take simple numbers
    > > and make them say anything they want - same could be done by the people
    > > that are not stuck on one platform.

    > Yes - using that silly measure the TRS-80 must be one of the most secure
    > platforms available. We all should rush out and get one. I have never
    > heard of a single TRS-80 being compramised in the last five years.


    Funny you should mention that...

    TRS-80 laptops are still sought after and available.

    --
    Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}

  11. M$ attack on Common Sense


    My final word on the subject:


    Windows is a crummy operating system.


    And we see here just WHY it is:

    Because most of its users are utterly incapable of exercising basic
    common sense.


    Here's your clue, Windoze Weenies -- > 2 + 2 = 4


    Whether you *like* it or not.....


    Alan C



    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  12. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Connor wrote:

    > My final word on the subject:



    If only it were... What a ****ing bozo!


    You know, I freely admit to my UNIX bigotry and I'll slam Microshaft
    every chance I get, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go after the
    people that use it...

    Time for your meds, pinhead!



    --------
    Senior UNIX Admin
    O'Leary Computer Enterprises
    dkoleary@attbi.com (w) 630-904-6098 (c) 630-248-2749
    resume: http://home.attbi.com/~dkoleary/resume.html

  13. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    User wrote:
    > Most companies just have windows networks because they simply work.


    Your troll appears to have failed.

    Paul


  14. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft


    The brilliant computer scientist, Henry Spencer, said:


    "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to re-invent it poorly."


    Now. If only Bill Gates and friends had listened to a pre-eminent computer
    scientist instead of a bunch of greedy yuppies and spoiled consumers.


    I sure am tired of listening to the rantings of a bunch of M$ Weenies
    pretending that they understand [Ul][Ni][In][Xu][ x].

    What can you say to someone who thinks that the lack of a woman page is
    the result of sexism on the part of sysadmins?


    Or that a regular expression is something you wear on your face after having
    a good ****?


    Alan C



    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  15. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In message , Alan
    Connor writes
    >
    >The brilliant computer scientist, Henry Spencer, said:
    >
    >
    >"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to re-invent it poorly."
    >
    >
    >Now. If only Bill Gates and friends had listened to a pre-eminent computer
    >scientist instead of a bunch of greedy yuppies and spoiled consumers.
    >
    >

    You are aware that Bill himself was heavily involved in a port of Unix?
    Back when he was a programmer, not a lawyer.

    And several features of DOS, carried into Windows, were specifically put
    there to differentiate it from Unix e.g. \ instead of /.
    --
    Joe

  16. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:46:02 +0100, Joe wrote:
    >
    >
    > In message , Alan
    > Connor writes
    >>
    >>The brilliant computer scientist, Henry Spencer, said:
    >>
    >>
    >>"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to re-invent it poorly."
    >>
    >>
    >>Now. If only Bill Gates and friends had listened to a pre-eminent computer
    >>scientist instead of a bunch of greedy yuppies and spoiled consumers.
    >>
    >>

    > You are aware that Bill himself was heavily involved in a port of Unix?
    > Back when he was a programmer, not a lawyer.
    >




    > And several features of DOS, carried into Windows, were specifically put
    > there to differentiate it from Unix e.g. \ instead of /.
    > --
    > Joe


    Yes. A foolish move. The backslash is very important to the shell for
    escaping. They didn't understand UNIX so they re-invented it poorly :-)

    But the mistake was not made by Bill Gates and friends, who didn't invent
    DOS.....



    Alan C


    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  17. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Alan Connor wrote:

    > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:46:02 +0100, Joe wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> In message , Alan
    >> Connor writes
    >>>
    >>>The brilliant computer scientist, Henry Spencer, said:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to re-invent it
    >>>poorly."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Now. If only Bill Gates and friends had listened to a pre-eminent
    >>>computer scientist instead of a bunch of greedy yuppies and spoiled
    >>>consumers.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> You are aware that Bill himself was heavily involved in a port of Unix?
    >> Back when he was a programmer, not a lawyer.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >> And several features of DOS, carried into Windows, were specifically
    >> put there to differentiate it from Unix e.g. \ instead of /.
    >> --
    >> Joe

    >
    > Yes. A foolish move. The backslash is very important to the shell for
    > escaping. They didn't understand UNIX so they re-invented it poorly :-)
    >
    > But the mistake was not made by Bill Gates and friends, who didn't
    > invent DOS.....
    >
    >

    It was made by them. MSDOS 1.0 did not know about subdirs. It was
    essentially QDOS from Seattle Computer with little changed.
    They made this braindead decision because the utilities used the slash as
    options delimiter, not the " - " like unix does because some twit at MS
    programmed this in. And they did not want to change later
    The use of the backslash for directories came with MSDOS 2.x, which knew
    about those

    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.


  18. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Leythos wrote:
    > In article , dkoleary@attbi.com
    > says...
    >> In comp.os.linux.misc Alan Connor wrote:
    >>
    >> > Yes, I always spot bull****ters (your spelling of UNIX as "Unix" gave you
    >> > away: No UNIX professional would ever do that.)

    >>
    >> Christ, Alan, get a grip! I've been working on UNIX system for over
    >> 14 years now and I occasionally go the Unix route. Criminey; I almost
    >> came to your defense a post back.

    >
    > I thought it was funny too - I've been working with Unix since the late
    > 70's and he thought I should have typed Nix! That's when I lost any
    > respect for him


    ... And apparently no one realizes that it always *was* called Unix,
    from the very beginning; it's just that the guys at Bell Labs got
    overenamoured with a nifty troff font called "Small Caps."
    --
    If this was helpful, rate me
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
    Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?

  19. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:07:28 GMT, User wrote:
    >
    >
    >



    I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot work out
    unix.

    Right. A person that has the ability to become an M.D. can't do what the
    13 year old kid down my block learned to do in two weeks.

    I am beginning to think that you are actually an idiot.







    Next time you have a heart attack try fixing it yourself instead of
    going to one of these people who "utterly incapable of exercising basic
    common sense". Moron. Blamining users just because they haven't done a
    computer science degree or spent 30 hours a week hacking unix is arrogant
    and elitist. Other people have a real life you know.



    Other people have "brains" you know.


    But then, not having one, you might not realize they exist.




    Unethical and criminal business practices account for much of M$'s success,
    NOT a superior operating system.

    I wouldn't let a doctor near me that used M$ products for anything critical.


    Gods! I wonder how many people have died or been crippled by such foolishness.


    It never occured to me that there is also a Red Screen of Death.




    Can't say I am surprised to find an idiot defending M$.


    There's something poetic about that, don't you think?


    Oops! I forgot that you don't do that.





    Alan C


    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  20. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In article ,
    User@hotmail.com says...
    [snip]
    > The only medical practice I know around here that uses unix (SCO Unix) the
    > unix box always has problems and has been of the air for several days last
    > week. The windows machines have all worked fine!!
    >
    > The company that owns the contract to maintain the SCO box can't seem to get
    > it to handle more than 14 users, have difficulty setting up VPNs on it and
    > all the other good stuff that appear to be just plug and play with
    > microsoft.


    The sad part is it's not just doctors and other small business users. I
    know a national chain of PET stored that used a few Linux machines and
    after having reliability problems with them, they have decided to move
    the Windows 2000. Their reasons were simple - they can find quality
    resources to work on their networks and servers everywhere and they can
    do all of their business working with one Software/OS provider. On the
    flip side of this, if that had gone with HP-UX or SCO or AIX I would
    imagine that their systems would have been stable, but I don't think
    their IT budget would support AIX or HP-UX.

    It's really too bad that Alan has taken the discussion path he's driven
    down, I had almost wanted to discuss things with him, but he's proved
    that he's not going to listed to any of us, even the people use Unix and
    Windows all the time.

    At this point he fully meets the definition of a Troll.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast