Linux Security Project

[CMonster]

I believe the kernel and structure of UNIX/Linux is inherently more secure than MS Windows and would like help compiling a list of the specific reasons why this is true:

*if you use Linux and believe it is more secure than MS Windows could you please list all the reasons you can think of (do not worry about duplications)

THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A DEBATE THREAD! If you believe MS. Windows is the more secure alternative then feel free to post your opinion in the Applications and Operating Systems forum (please not in this thread)

[eskiled]

Off the top of my head:

1. No such thing as Internet Explorer for Linux .

2. As a home user, less effort has been put forth to compromise my operating system, because less people use it.

3. Strict user system. If set up properly (you have to try to set them up improperly), have only permissions they absolutely need, therefor can't break anything. On a similar note, if a user is compromised, very little damage can be done (generally restricted to ~ and /tmp).

4. ill post more later..

[Epyon9283]

People generally don't run as root.

Diversity. Not everyone is running the same versions of software on the same architecture.

[krohnjw]

From a base system perspective:

1.) hosts.deny/hosts.allow.
2.) iptables and packet filtering.
3.) ability to easily manage users and groups and as a result access ability and threat of a compromised user account.
4.) Easily changing the listening port for any service you use (security through obscurity, not the best but effective for bots and worms although not always practical).
5.) Useful logging and the ability to build proactive scripts based on a sequence of events.
6.) Separation of device drivers into userspace.

[Epyon9283]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krohnjw

6.) Separation of device drivers into userspace.

Which device drivers?

All of the ones I use (video, sound, net, etc.) are in kernel space AFAIK. They're all either compiled into the kernel or are kernel modules.

[krohnjw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epyon9283

Which device drivers?

All of the ones I use (video, sound, net, etc.) are in kernel space AFAIK. They're all either compiled into the kernel or are kernel modules.

Scratch that I was working a making this list off of the top of my head (had just finished reading up on microkernels vs monolithic kernels.) an erroneus entry.

[CMonster]

late bleary eyed - keep um coming

[CMonster]

...? I was hoping to get more responses

I supose that since win2K and XP have similar security and stability features such as secure journaled file systems and device and file permissions, and non-root/administrator acounts that the list of Linux security advantages is not as long as it used to be.

I think Linux has less services of the dangerous kind, such as active x, and the fact that the source is open means that bugs are spotted and fixes offered more quickly than with Windows.

think of anything else?