Mandag den 4. oktober 2004 12:27 skrev Sid Boyce:
peter Nikolic wrote:
On Monday 04 Oct 2004 02:54, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
<STUFF DELETED>
Sure, Linux is harder to break into. but after all, Linux also has its infamous rootkit. On the principle that better neighborhoods attract a better class of burglers, Linux would attract sufficiently talented hackers if it were in wider use.
Linux, with its underlying foundation of old C code, is particularly vulnerable to buffer-overflow attacks.
Paul
Ever heard of Libsafe .. ?....
worth investigating i dont get problems from buffer overflow attacks thanks to Libsafe it can them before they can cause mischief ..
Pete
Silly question for you and Pete. How would you implement "Libsafe" into you Suse distro ?? Secondly other suggestions/"easy" usable pointers to make SuSE a safe place to be ;-) TIA Johan
Pete, you and I have used libsafe since it was first introduced and make sure it's installed. We know you have to look beyond the stuff in the distro. We also don't buy into the numbers argument, Windows was not designed with security in mind and does nothing to beef up security other than issue patches for the current crop of attacks as they are exposed. Buffer overflow and format string attacks get killed by libsafe (that answers Paul W. Abrahams point above), so the question raised many times, including by lwn.net about three years ago as to why only Connectiva uses it, perhaps not only Microsoft thinks like Microsoft - vulnerability gets exposed, issue a patch to fix it, exposure exists, discover it, fix it, hoping you don't get bitten before the fix comes out - sounds a crazy scheme to me. Regards Sid.
-- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer =====LINUX ONLY USED HERE=====