Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Most Attacked Server?

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the certainly-more-to-gain dept.

Linux 815

Anonymous guy who can't remember his login sent in a story from the Globe And Mail that says "During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers."

cancel ×

815 comments

GNAA: Most attacked anuses! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935479)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

Trollkore: Most attacked GNAA! (-1)

(TK)Dessimat0r (668222) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935500)

-PENIS--PENIS--PENIS--PENIS-
P_______________________8..P
E__Bow down to the_____#~..E
N__Lord's penis_______8.',-N
I_____________________#',-.I
S__Jesus wants your__8',-..S
-__anus, and he_____#~',-..-
P__wants it NOW! ___8_',-..P
E__________________##',-',-E
N__An original_____8',-',";N
I__TrollKore______##',-',";I
S__work of art.___8',-',";.S
-__By Dessimat0r ##',-',";.-
P________________8',-',";,.P
E_______________#'',-',";,.E
N______________8(',-',";,..N
I_____________#(',-',";,.,.I
S__________#8#8_',-',";,.,.S
-_________#',-.8',-',";,.,.-
P________8~',-..#',-',";,..P
E_______#'',-',";8_',-',";.E
N_____8=',-',";.+#+',-',";.N
I____#=',-',";,._8',-',";,.I
S___#=',-',";,..(#',-',";.8S
-__8(',-',CMDR,.(8',-',";s#-
P_8(',-',.TACO.";#',-',-s8_P
E_#z',-','WOZ',";8',-..s#__E
N_8_.,#',"ERE',";~#,..88___N
I_#.##',-,',',,";~8,8#_____I
S_8##',-+~'',-',-~#'8______S
-_#.,..-',-',";.'=8#_______-
P_.8+_',-',";,.'88_________P
E___888',-',";~8___________E
N______8#888#88____________N
I__________________________I
S____.oO TrollKore Oo._____S
-_At the head of the game._-
P__________________________P
E___irc.freedomirc.net_____E
N_______#trollkore_________N
I__________________________I
S__________________________S
-PENIS--PENIS--PENIS--PENIS-

Get the code to the TrollKore ASCII penis here... [slashdot.org]

All you cock-loving fuckers out there, here is a special treat for you bastards, take a look at this knob. NOW SUCK IT, MOTHERFUCKERS!

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account. Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal the convenient form below, or Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account. Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal

Trollkore: Most failed attempts at FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935517)

Doesn't deliver what it promises... (-1, Offtopic)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935480)

I must say I am thoroughly disappointed with this book [amazon.com] . The book's description, as well as other readers' comments led me to believe that this book [amazon.com] would have been more than just a compilation of information that could be freely obtained at the dozens of security related web sites. Sadly, this was not the case.

The bulk of the book merely describes (mostly outdated) common
attacks/vulnerabilities, without getting into much detail why they exist and the underlying explanations on how they are exploited. As such the book reads like "For Vulnerability X, Install patch Y" without getting into more detail. Heck, even Microsoft's Security Bulletins give more info that this!

Many of the "75 Top Hack Attacks" that the book promises can be freely found online (check CERT's site).

The general impression I get from reading this book [amazon.com] is that the author tried his best to fill up space in order to deliver an impressively thick book. Was it a requirement that he include SCREENSHOTS of various hacking tools/trojans, including step-by-step INSTALL SCREENSHOTS for the included TigerSuite software? (If you don't know how to install software then you need to develop more skills before learning about hacking!). Did he HAVE to include the useless 10 year old 'how to build a modem filter' BBS textfile (which by the way doesn't filter noise on modern modems)? Did the publisher mandate that he include 9 PAGES of Decimal-to-Hex conversion tables when you could use, say, Windows Calculator to do any needed conversions?

Another thing I disliked was that Windows XP as well as Wireless networks (802.11/WEP were glossed over) were not really covered in the sort of detail that I desired.

And, although I appreciate that a basic understanding of the x86 instruction set is required for better understanding low level security issues, I really don't see the point to Chapter 13's discussion on programming "How to Draw Circles in DOS mode" using the VESA bios interface. This is, in my opinion, not relevant considering the book's topic, so why include it? (A better choice would be explaining how the stack is used in high level languages (C, C++) and how buffer overrun hacks work). If you want to learn C, Assembly, or graphics programming buy a book dedicated to these topics. I think it's safe to say that the average reader will NOT become a programmer after reading the "Crash course in C" - it's an unreaslistic expectation.

And to top it all off, the final insult to readers is the interruption of the author's hacking experience "Intuitive Intermission" with the phrase "... to be continued in: Hack Attacks Denied, 2nd Edition". I guess both the author and publisher want you to buy both books!

My chief complaint with the book is that it doesn't seem to know who the reader is. In some areas the author gets down-and-dirty technical (x86 assembly/C programming) while in others he doesn't really explain details or just mentions things in passing (case in point: nowhere does he explain workings of a typical buffer overrun exploit, etc). Also, the author really does not give advice on how to secure or harden systems, aside from "install the update patch". For a book whose focus is security/hacking that's a pretty fatal flaw.

Like I said earlier, this book [amazon.com] really seems to me like the author just threw any material that he could find that was remotely related to hacking and presto, one hacking book ready to ship!

If you are new to either the computer or security-related fields then perhaps this book may be of some value to you. If you are not an absolute beginner and know how to search the web, then I'd say that you probably don't need this book. Even if you do buy this book, it, like any security related book, will become technically obsolete as new software/exploits/patches are found.

Quote: (under "Who should read this book?")

"The hacking enthusiast and admirer of such films as Sneakers, The Matrix, Hackers, and Swordfish"

If you still need another reason not to purchase this book, the above quote says it all!

MODS: MOD THIS DOWN, CONTAINS OFFENSIVE TEXT (-1)

(TK)Dessimat0r (668222) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935546)

If you are new to either the computer or security-related fields then perhaps this book may be of some value to you. If you are not an absolute nigger and know how to search the web, then I'd say that you probably don't need this book. Even if you do buy this book, it, like any fucking coon related book, will become technically obsolete as new software/exploits/patches are found.

What? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935617)

What has this to do with anything? And are you the author of the review posted here [ilectric.com] ?

Server already slow, here is the text (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935490)

Linux is favourite hacker target: Study

By JACK KAPICA
Globe and Mail Update

E-mail this Article
Print this Article

Advertisement

Linux, not Microsoft Windows, remains the most-attacked operating system, a British security company reports.

During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers, according to the report.

Just 360 -- less than 2 per cent -- of BSD Unix servers were successfully breached in August.

The data comes from the London-based mi2g Intelligence Unit, which has been collecting data on overt digital attacks since 1995 and verifying them. Its database has tracked more than 280,000 overt digital attacks and 7,900 hacker groups.

Linux remained the most attacked operating system on-line during the past year, with 51 per cent of all successful overt digital attacks.

Microsoft Windows servers belonging to governments, however, were the most attacked (51.4 per cent) followed by Linux (14.3 per cent) in August.

The economic damage from the attacks, in lost productivity and recovery costs, fell below average in August, to $707-million (U.S.).

The overall economic damage in August from overt and covert attacks as well as viruses and worms stood at an all-time high of $28.2-billion, about as much as Cmdr Taco makes per year as a male prostitute.

The Sobig and MSBlast malware that afflict Microsoft platforms contributed significantly to the record estimate.

"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

Help me with the math here (5, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935621)

They claim a database of 280,000 attacks since 1995. They claim there were at least 18,000 attacks in August alone, or 6.5% of the total of 1% of their sample. Also, these numbers are meaningless without knowing the total population of each type of server. Oy!

Hmm... (4, Funny)

BeninOcala (664162) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935491)

Funding provided by Microsoft....

Re:Hmm... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935671)

For the attacks or the study?

Yeah... (3, Insightful)

Viper168 (650370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935492)

But think of how many more linux servers are out there than windows servers.......

Re:Yeah... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935559)

Linux/UNIX does run on 70% of web servers out there. Therefore, these numbers might make some sense.

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935592)

I sure hope your not serious, you might want to verify that statement.

Re:Yeah... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935606)

I sure hope your not serious, you might want to verify that statement.
Servers... not desktops.

Re:Yeah... (5, Informative)

notsewmit (655779) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935600)

Exactly.... the report would have been better if they had broken it down like this:

OS
% of Total Hacks
% of Servers running OS Hacked

Re:Yeah... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935660)

Theres even this crazy concept called normalization. I know it's not effective when you're trying to make funny numbers, but it does help make the results resemble reality.

Re:Yeah... (1)

kishphish (669916) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935607)

Besides the larger number of linux servers, we all know any 'real' hacker uses linux and hence knows linux internals ergo attacks (or more likely tries to attack) what he/she knows best.

Re:Yeah... (5, Insightful)

Chester K (145560) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935613)

But think of how many more linux servers are out there than windows servers.......

The ratio of Windows workstations to Linux workstations has never stopped us from divining that the reason there are more viruses for Windows because of its ubiquity, not necessarily its security record.

Why should this be any different?

Re:Yeah... (2, Funny)

Hayzeus (596826) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935681)

The ratio of Windows workstations to Linux workstations has never stopped us from divining

This is /. Obviously you meant to write "denying" in place of "divining".

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935622)

The same can be said about Windows on the desktop. So the next time you decide to bring up how often MSFT needs patching and is unsecure, remember your linux comment here.......

A Step Farther (3, Funny)

Houn (590414) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935648)

Sure, we all know that Linux is on more Web Servers than MS.

But consider this: Do people attack the server because it's running Linux, or because it's hosting the SCO website?

I think the CONTENT drives far more hacks than the OS it's on...

Re:Yeah... (5, Insightful)

retinaburn (218226) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935668)

So we can rail against MS for having an insecure operating system and flaunt Linux's proliferation in the market, and then dismiss that its because of Linux's dominance that more Linux systems are getting hacked. We should instead try to foster a more security mindeded friendly community to educate the Linux sysadmins out there. This is a problem, that should not be lightly dismissed. If there was a larger percentage of windows boxes out there would anyone say 'But think of how many more windows servers are out there than linux servers.......

Woo! (4, Funny)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935494)

We're number one! We're number one! Woo! Party!

Er... wait, what? Is this a good thing?

What? (5, Funny)

ascalon (683759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935497)

Good god sir, do you know where you are posting this? ;]

Interpretations... (4, Insightful)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935498)

On the surface, this statistic serves both as a testament to linux's growing popularity as a server OS and ammo for those windows admins who have long taken abuses about the insecure nature of their OS. These ideas, particularly the latter, however, may prove misguided; breaches against servers are rooted not only in the security of their running OS, but also in the effectiveness of the security implementation of the system admin him/herself.

Re:Interpretations... (3, Insightful)

Zigg (64962) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935563)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lot of these probably happened inside cut-rate shared-hosting environments, where Linux is uber-popular and security is often kept lax to keep customer questions at a minimum. Let's face it, it's easier to clean up a defaced homepage than try to explain chmod to folks...

Re:Interpretations... (4, Insightful)

Gaijin42 (317411) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935659)

Im going out on a pretty wide limb and saying that Windows problems were also largely in the same boat.

ITs possible to make a secure windows system. Its possible to make a secure linux system.

ITs possible to make an insecure windows system.
Its possible to make an insecure linux system.

Re:Interpretations... (2, Insightful)

RoundSparrow (341175) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935649)


Ok, so you agree that it isn't just OS vendor but also admin.

How about just say the whole industry has been focused on features + improvements and not on security. Only fringe products like OpenBSD have really focused on it (BTW: I use OpenBSD and think it is great, but it does lack features compared to FreeBSD or even Windows. Of course, it is focused, which is why I use it!).

How about we stop bashing Windows and just respect that EVERYONE has to focus on security more. And that such work is adding overhead to how the industry has generally worked in the past.

Example:
I still see that SQL Insertion attacks are rarely understood on web site programming samples, and these are not unique to any programming language or platform!

hi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935505)

hi

Article Text (0, Redundant)

epsalon (518482) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935507)

Linux is favourite hacker target: Study

By JACK KAPICA
Globe and Mail Update

Linux, not Microsoft Windows, remains the most-attacked operating system, a British security company reports.

During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers, according to the report.

Just 360 -- less than 2 per cent -- of BSD Unix servers were successfully breached in August.

The data comes from the London-based mi2g Intelligence Unit, which has been collecting data on overt digital attacks since 1995 and verifying them. Its database has tracked more than 280,000 overt digital attacks and 7,900 hacker groups.

Linux remained the most attacked operating system on-line during the past year, with 51 per cent of all successful overt digital attacks.

Microsoft Windows servers belonging to governments, however, were the most attacked (51.4 per cent) followed by Linux (14.3 per cent) in August.

The economic damage from the attacks, in lost productivity and recovery costs, fell below average in August, to $707-million (U.S.).

The overall economic damage in August from overt and covert attacks as well as viruses and worms stood at an all-time high of $28.2-billion.

The Sobig and MSBlast malware that afflict Microsoft platforms contributed significantly to the record estimate.

"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

DIE, KARMA WHORES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935535)

I hate blatant karma whoring. YOU SUCK. go join the GNAA or something

Re:Article Text (1)

agedman (452916) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935630)

I'm not wanting to downplay the interest or importance of this, but it would have been interesting to see what percentage of breakin attempts were successful against the different OSs.

Re:Article Text (2, Funny)

jimand (517224) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935675)

A nice idea posting the text, but I believe you'll find that the Globe and Mail extremely difficult to /. It loaded successfully every time but once for me two years ago today, and the news that day was even more interesting than Linux vs. Windows.

Re:Article Text (2, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935686)

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

ha ha.... making good of their rapidly shrinking server market share... oh this is classic. Those figures almost exactly match the market shares for Apache and Microsoft

news.netcraft.com [netcraft.com]

Apache 64.52% ... Microsoft 23.54%...

so just who is trying to kid who with the figures???

icon change (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935509)

In all fairness, if the Windows icon is broken, shoudn't tux be bruised or crying or something?

that accounts for only 90.2 percent?? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935515)

What are the other 9.8 percent running......and why!?

And this is... (0, Offtopic)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935516)

...why you should run *BSD....

But since we all know that *BSD is dying, we soon will all get 0wN3d!

This can't be accurate (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935523)

with all the worms around... this sounds like bullshit

Going for the good stuff. (0, Troll)

Phiz (21461) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935526)

Maybe its just because people put their important stuff on Linux machines. Who wants to hack Windows machines when all you are going to get into is someone's Outlook mailbox full of spam and Sobig.F?

Canadan Newspaper != The BBC (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935527)

Okay... do the editors read the links anymore?

This clearly came from Canada's Globe and Mail newsmapaper, which is clearly has nothing in common with the British Broadcasting Company

Canadian, not Canadan ;-) (1)

hayesjaj (267076) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935590)

I suppose its easy to miss that one though...

Re:Canadan Newspaper != The BBC (1)

setzman (541053) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935614)

A email I wrote:

TO: daddypants@slashdot.org
SUBJECT: [DP] Linux Most Attacked Server?

sent in a stroy from the BBC that

Link doesn't appear to be from the BBC. Looks like The Globe and Mail. Then again I suppose the BBC could own this site.



I guess he didn't believe me.

Active or passive attacks? (5, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935529)

Does this count the number of Windows machines that were 'compromised' by BLASTER and its children? If someone gets a binary on my server and controls what my server does ( in this case, replicating the worm ), then I'd call that hacked. Just because a worm did it vs. a human doesn't mean anything. More direct hacks on Linux machines might just mean that there was much more human effort expended.

Re:Active or passive attacks? (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935593)

Numbers without a counting methodogy are usually worthless. We've got a small article that doesn't even name what "british security company" released the data, and a summary that somehow gets the BBC involved even though they're nowhere to be found in the story.

Uhm... slow /. day?

How do they relate (3, Interesting)

ceswiedler (165311) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935530)

How do these numbers relate to the number of servers which are 'attackable' by hackers? ...even assuming (as they do) that home desktop machines on DSL/cable modems which are compromised (by worms or hackers) are not considered 'server attacks'.

Well, they don't say that, but if you include the number of infected Windows desktops this year, I have a pretty good feeling it would be a LOT more than 12,000, even if you only include infections designed to give control to an outside party (as opposed to simply spreading).

Only 30 pounds... (1)

L-Train8 (70991) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935531)

It only costs you 30 pounds to read the whole report here [mi2g.com] , so if you want to know the methodology, it will cost you. I guess that's better than Microsoft paying for the report...

Re:Only 30 pounds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935650)

It only costs you 30 pounds to read the whole report

30 pounds of what?

Lies, all lies! (-1, Troll)

setzman (541053) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935532)

I don't believe this story. It doesn't even come from the BBC, it comes from The Globe and Mail! Who are they, a Microsoft-owned "news" organization? Then again, the Globe and Mail is probably owned by/is part of/works with the BBC, and I will get modded down -1, non-sense.

Re:Lies, all lies! (-1, Offtopic)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935627)

One should mention, when he posted that it said "a story at the BBC."

Re:Lies, all lies! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935694)

thanks for the support. the mods are trying to kill that post off, so I will retreat back into lurking around in anonymous mode to preserve my excellent karma.

Staying uptodate costs money... (5, Insightful)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935534)

No doubt the Linux faithful are going to bay and scream about this report, but there's something interesting buried in the article. The following quote:
The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

Although I don't like Microsoft's software and it's a real pain having to get all the latest patches, they do at least tell us when they've got a patch. This is an inadequacy with Free Software that in general needs to be addressed, and it will make a nice revenue stream. At my company we subscribe to RedHat's "uptodate" service that makes sure that we are always patched. Even though the software is Free we are still willing to pay someone to tell us what we need to patch.

It's ironic that Microsoft provides that service for free, whereas Linux requires paying money. But it's good because at least here there's a clear way to make money off Free Software and keep programmers like me from going hungry.

John.

Re:Staying uptodate costs money... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935635)

No doubt the Linux faithful are going to bay and scream about this report, but there's something interesting buried in the article.

OOOO!!!! AGGGGHHHHH!!! AWWWWWW!!! EEEEEEEEEEEKKKK! Bay!!111

All "enterprise" grade distributions (and their desktop counterparts) have an update system that you are mentioning. RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, etc.

It's free too, dumbass.

Re:Staying uptodate costs money... (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935646)

It's ironic that Microsoft provides that service for free, whereas Linux requires paying money. But it's good because at least here there's a clear way to make money off Free Software and keep programmers like me from going hungry.

Trust me, you pay for it. You just pay for it differently.

Re:Staying uptodate costs money... (5, Informative)

Kevinv (21462) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935667)

Both debian and gentoo (and Red Hat) have security mailing lists that list packages/ebuilds that have been updated for security reasons. I know Debian & Red Hat's are cross-posted with Bugtraq, not sure about Gentoo's.

Finding updated packages isn't a big deal. Harder is finding what software has an announced vulnerability that hasn't been patched by it's respective distribution yet. Red Hat uptodate has the same problem, if Red Hat hasn't patched the vunerability yet you won't know about it.

Of course in the Open Source world the updates come pretty quick after the annoucement anyway, but if there were some software app that had a real old version with no maintaniner as the default it could present a problem.

Re:Staying uptodate costs money... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935676)

You could subscribe to Secunia's free mailing list, which mails out exploit information frequently...

Re:Staying uptodate costs money... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935696)

If you use Debian or Conectiva you can just use apt-get. Debian use apt-get for years and you dont have to pay a cent!

Bullshit (-1, Troll)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935536)

Bullshit

Pure crapola (0, Flamebait)

bigjnsa500 (575392) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935537)

This is pure crapola. I remember this post from about a month ago. It was something like NetCraft but for hacked computers. It listed what computer OS, the URL, defacement, etc...

Anyway, whoever posted it didn't check the archives because I did and found that all months, I could only find a handful of Linux machines 'sploited. And all of these where 5.2 to 6.2 Redhat machines.

Well (1)

Worminater (600129) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935540)

Being the best at something is good...


What level of attacks is this mentioning, and on what scale though?


Some random kick playing with rh8 sets up a quick and dirty server and it gets hacked, ther ya go...

Code Red (1)

Fastball (91927) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935542)

Well if the majority of web servers on the Net run Apache + Linux, then sure, because my web server continues to absorb Code Red hits looking for an exploitable Microsoft IIS server.

stats? (4, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935544)

So, I wonder....the interesting statistic to me would be what percentage of attacks against each platform are successful? This statistic is not explicitly stated. Also did they include OS X as part of the study?

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. (0, Troll)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935548)

Those statistics were missing anything resembling meaning. The report was basically a fluff peice supported by funny numbers in order to put a tag line in for Microsoft security.

Why did this make slashdot?

Well, duh... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935552)

More systems == more attacks. And consider that most servers are pre-configured with lame settings & passwords, and MOST newfi admins NEVER change the password... and if they do, it's a simple one that they use on ALL the systems they admin.
Geesh, it's not like we're talking broken protocols here...

Corresponds with Netcraft (4, Informative)

clustersnarf (236) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935553)

These figures correspond almost directly to netcraft. Seems to me, more linux/apache boxes out on the net means more targets. IIS holds about 24% and apache is about 64%. DUH. Its not hard to see that there will be more attacks if there are more machines. I bet they didnt factor how many OS/2 boxes got attacked.

Statistics are dumb.

Not Illogical (0)

R-66Y (150658) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935562)

Wouldn't this lend itself more to Linux servers being so dominant in the market? If I have a thousand Palm Pilots, and X number of them are defective, wouldn't X increase proportionately as I looked at more and more?

Later,
Patrick

Most attacked server? (5, Interesting)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935578)

Yes, my Linux server is certainly being attacked constantly. I know this because I keep finding entries like these in the apache log files:
212.181.127.182 xxxxxxxx.org - [08/Sep/2003:21:36:02 +0100] "GET /MSADC/root.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404
12.242.55.56 xxxxxxxx.org - [09/Sep/2003:21:41:54 +0100] "get /scripts/..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af.. %c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af..%c0%af/winnt/syste m32/cmd.exe?/c%20dir" 501
62.194.103.198 xxxxxxxx.org - [11/Sep/2003:10:31:35 +0100] "GET /scripts/nsiislog.dll" 404
HH

Don't forget WEB-IIS nsiislog.dll access (1, Informative)

dark-br (473115) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935682)

Payload (Hex):
4745 5420 2F73 6372 6970 7473 2F6E 7369 6973 6C6F
672E 646C 6C0D 0A0D 0A

Payload (ASCII):
GET /scripts/nsiislog.dll....

Re:Most attacked server? (4, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935687)

Wow. I get a lot of those too. Thank goodness I deleted that pesky "default.ida" file from my Apache web server so I could be safe! :)

Its true: Linux is Dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935583)

Blood flowing like red ink on paper, writing on the wall, etc, etc. You get the picture.

This is complete and utter bullshit. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935589)

First of all, you can't really verify Windows breakins because the o/s lacks the ability to accurately capture such data, and secondly, Windows admins rarely report it to anyone when their systems get busted into.

Naturally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935591)

This is obvious. I expect that the number of morons actually running Windows as a server is around 4,626.

This assumes that Windows admins are smart enough to realize that their servers are wide open. Remember children, script kiddies aren't the only h4x0rs in the word.

Jesus... (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935595)

The overall economic damage in August from overt and covert attacks as well as viruses and worms stood at an all-time high of $28.2-billion.

So while these "attacks" on servers totalling about the same damage amounts as usual there was quite a new record high obtained by the RPC vunerability...

So they are attacking an OS that is known to be running on more servers around the world and the "damage" from these attacks is holding steady, yet we don't mention in the article title that because Windows is MAJORLY vunerable, there was nearly 30 BILLION dollars in damage done!

Interesting spin.

What about Attacks from Venders? (2, Interesting)

jimsum (587942) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935596)

They count hacker attacks, although without knowing the relative numbers of servers we don't know which O/S is better.

But what about vender attacks, like patches that crash the server, or the DoS attacks that happen when a server is taken off-line for patching? And surely a precautionary disconnect when there is a MS virus storm has to count as a successful DoS attack.

If you see one kung-fu western this summer... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935598)

...make it Shanghai Noon!

'On-line servers' would tend to skew away from windows.

Ahh, statistics. (2, Insightful)

zippity8 (446412) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935603)

During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent.

Of course, that really depends on how you 'verify' a breach, doesn't it? /me turns off logging and closes eyes, going back to my happy place.

*sigh*

But what about (2, Insightful)

wmaker (701707) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935605)

During August, 67 per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft "Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers, according to the report.

Just 360 -- less than 2 per cent -- of BSD Unix servers were successfully breached in August."


I'm upset that they didn't mention the ratio of machines hacked... i.e. just because more linux machines that were hacked than microsoft doesn't mean that the ratio tells a different story. There might be more linux servers out there.

Re:But what about (1)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935691)

There might be more linux servers out there.

Hey, ether way, that's stunning news, isn't it?

Not to make light of their study (1, Redundant)

greechneb (574646) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935608)

But how many of these were attacks successful on machines without the correct patches? How many were because of scripting problems on webpages? How many were configured incorrectly? Behind poor firewalls? This doesn't break down what kind of attacks they were. You can't make generalizations without complete information.

Simple explanation: (3, Insightful)

Future Man 3000 (706329) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935611)

Linux has gained enough acceptance in the server field to be deployed in large numbers and at high-visibility targets. Additionally, the level of competence of the people deploying Linux is probably dropping somewhat, as it's moving from something that is just installed by those who love it and are willing to take the time to monitor all of the security flaws to something that is installed by people who just want something that works.

Also, it has gained something of a reputation as a secure system, at least compared to IIS, and this may be undeserved in installations where best security practices are not followed (most of them). This is perhaps a wakeup call that it's important to patch, only set up services that are necessary, and use a firewall and intrustion detection system, but most people know that already.

Owned? (1)

RevSmiley (226151) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935615)

I am just weondering how many of those owned boxes are run by MCSEs who now are telling everyone they know "Linux." Anyone running Unix would have known to check, check, and recheck as well as patch, patch, patch. Even with all that extra sounding work it's still cheaper to deploy and run Linux boxes.

More credit than they deserve (4, Insightful)

runchbox (578541) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935620)

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

The only way they've reduced the _proportion_ of attacks on their servers is by losing market share. The total number of attacks against Windows servers is still increasing, so it's a little premature to give them any compliments.

These aren't good statistics (5, Insightful)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935628)

"The proliferation of Linux within the on-line server community coupled with inadequate knowledge of how to keep that environment secure when running vulnerable third-party applications is contributing to a consistently higher proportion of compromised Linux servers," mi29 chairman D.K. Matai said.
So let me get this right. Since third party applications under Linux get hacked, it is attributed to Linux being more vulnerable while MS Windows running third party software is more secure??? So a PHP/SQL injection exploit is attributed to the OS PHP is installed on? Does the exploit count twice then? - Once for each operating system?

I think it's time to break the statistics down application by application at that point. Show me some Apache vs. IIS numbers or MySQL vs. SQL Server numbers or exclude third party applications altogether please. For the record, I run both Windows and Linux for clients and servers and am pretty neutral in the whole OS wars thing. Each has their merits and uses, both need regular security maintenance and I am pretty much happy with both for very different reasons. I'm not a Linux zealot, but I know bad numbers when I smell them. And then...

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."
So MS is shoring up third party applications then? They even go on to cite Sobig and MSBlast as the reasons for the high MS numbers. This is shifting over to a very FUD-like smell now.

Your login request (5, Funny)

eweu (213081) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935632)

Anonymous guy who can't remember his login

That would be WilliamGates.

Misleading... (1)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935634)

ok, attacked, maybe.

However, how many of those windows servers took part in massive worms? Those aren't attacked, those are automated attacks, and not considered.

How many of those got partial entry (I.E. not superuser).

Remember kids, when you #4x0r Windows, you get root.

I'm reminded of a quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Obvious explanation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935636)

a system has to be up to be attacked. given the excessive downtime and frequent reboots inherent in all MS OSes, they would be subject to fewer attacks.

I like that methodology. (1)

gmiller123456 (240000) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935639)

Durring August. What, have they been doing the survey every month for 10 years, and finally one month Linux comes out on top?

Prove your skills (1)

Captain Pooh (177885) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935651)

I would think someone whould like to prove they are l33t by hacking a linux box rather than a windows box. All those vulnerabilities in Windows makes it too easy to do.

couple likely reasons: (1)

vladkrupin (44145) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935653)

- there are more publicly accessible servers running Linux (e.g. linux/apache webservers)?
- you do need to have basic understanding of security and linux skills to make a secure server. There are fewer shrink-wrapped security-enchancing products for Linux, and a lot of people in charge of those Linux servers are the "point and click" kind.

What about worms? (3, Insightful)

GrenDel Fuego (2558) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935655)

I seem to recall some 500,000 servers being compromised by a worm last month. Do they only count attacks by people?

Well, yea, if you ignore most of the breakins (2, Insightful)

jimfrost (58153) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935661)

"Microsoft deserves credit for having reduced the proportion of successful on-line hacker attacks perpetrated against Windows servers."

Well, that's sensible if you ignore the half million or so infections by Blaster - which clearly this article does.

I think that any analysis of digital attacks that filters out malware is missing a huge part of reality. Certainly you'd have to be nuts to call August a good month for Microsoft servers.

we all know how it works (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935662)

Random article slams Linux in any way- no documented sources or verifiable numbers

"Bullshit! These numbers are made up! There's no way that's true! Microsoft must be behind it!"



Random article slams MS in any way- no documented sources or verifiable numbers

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Um, what about viruses? (1)

pbemfun (265334) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935664)

I find this hard to believe, especially considering the amount of traffic I'm seeing from infected Windows servers trying to break into my machines.

Of course, that number may be so low since all of the other Windows servers are done all the time. An attacker doesn't have a chance to break in. :)

looks like marketing to me (2, Interesting)

asv108 (141455) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935672)

I don't have the expertise to comment on the validity or invalidity of their report, but from a marketing point of view, this article is the perfect way to generate interest in their reports. This company has a varity of businesses, one of which is to sell reports [mi2g.com] . If you choose to buy the report, it comes with some pretty intersting terms and conditions [mi2g.com] ..

mi2g disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information. mi2g shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information intelligence offered or for interpretations thereof. mi2g disclaims itself of any sales lost or damages incurred to other parties as a result of this information.

Doesn't seem like this company is too confident in any of the claims made in these reports..

Their monthly intelligence [mi2g.com] has a quote that makes their "reseach methods" look shady:

The Monthly Intelligence analyses and collects data from over 7,000 hacker groups worldwide and provides detailed monthly and year-to-date information on:

Seems a little far fetched to me, I doubt many "hacker groups" are open to research companies doing data collection.

Right but what proportion... (0, Redundant)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935673)

of all Linux ecommerce servers were compromised versus their Windows counterparts?

Well, it's probably because (3, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935677)

We've become complacent. I mean, as Linux users, we expect the systems to be secure, where as with Windows systems, we know they're insecure, so we're more vigilant, always patching them.

I think a much more meaningful statistic would be how many fully patched Windows and Linux servers are successfully hacked. With Windows, you are always vulnerable, because the rate at which vulnerabilities are discovered far surpasses the rate at which patches are issued. With OSS, OTOH, a patch is usually issued a few hours or days after the vulnerability is discovered. Hence, the amount of time a successful Linux exploit is usuable is usually much lower than an exploit for Windows.

I would guess that most Linux machines that get hacked are due to unpatched/deliberately insecure configurations - like using a dictionary word for a root password.

What's meant by "server"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935678)

It's a little bit vague, are they talking about "number of domains defaced" or "number of physical machines compromised"? Browse a little at Zone H [zone-h.org] to get an idea about how this could be misleading.

Another Statistic would be Helpful (1)

kakos (610660) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935679)

If this report was paired with a statistic of pentration of Windows Servers vs Linux Servers, etc., it would be a lot better. Anyone have a recent study with such information?

This would be very interesting if Windows had more penetration. It would be less interesting if Linux had a 65% share of the server market.

Really? (1)

Lux (49200) | more than 10 years ago | (#6935685)

I think most security professionals would agree that a worm infection attempt constitutes an attack on a system. Therefore, I have more than a little skepticism about these results, given recent events.

I'm guessing they're only counting intrusion attempts that involved humans on the other end of the wire. That's pretty misleading.

-Lux

And I was wondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935695)

and I was wondering why people were doing a minute of silence today...

Slashdot Front Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6935702)

...
Linux Flamebait
nVidia vs ATI Flamebait
Outlook Flamebait
H1-B Flamebait
RIAA Flamebait
SCO Flamebait
Liberal Flamebait
ATI vs nVidia Flamebait ...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...