Linux Is Not A "Second String" Operating System

[Disposed]

I don't care to know things i just prefer to argue for the sake of arguing.

FTFY

 

[devil22]

The same way MAC addresses are issued, only it would be a master key for a mother/main/logic board.
I don't know or see why this is trivial or even an issue.

I don't agree with it for personal systems, but in an enterprise environment, it would certainly be a good addition to security, and least on the hardware/firmware level.

Public Key cryptography is nothing like MAC addresses. The key must be shared among the 'good guys' and not the 'bad guys' or it breaks. If you let users make their own keys, malware can do so as well.

 

[c3141hf]

Public Key cryptography is nothing like MAC addresses. The key must be shared among the 'good guys' and not the 'bad guys' or it breaks. If you let users make their own keys, malware can do so as well.

I think that the PGP people would disagree with you.

 

[Red Falcon]

I don't care to know more about linux than I have to, so that's a good thing.

That said enough to me about your ignorance.

Oh I see, this is the same linux that a game ported once to will run on all/most distros, but not malware..makes sense

Depends on the application, and no, the games will have to have different installers/extractors for different distros.
Also, the games will have to be installed via root, as would malware; so I guess if a user, like you, didn't know what the hell they were installing, then yeah, malware would be installed.

No OS in existence is user-proof, but according to you, Linux is but Windows isn't, right.

Windows has ACLs which are far better than linux's 9-bits of security failure.

Wow, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

you seem to think linux's old permissions are actually superior

Um, they are, as are many UNIX distros' permissions which operate very similarly.
This is why Linux and UNIX are so heavily used in enterprise environments and Windows is not.

 

[devil22]

FTFY

Nah, I enjoy arguing with people who pretend to understand tech and think people will bow before any clueless thing they say because they an OS nobody's heard of (or wants.)

 

[Red Falcon]

Public Key cryptography is nothing like MAC addresses..

Thank you captain obvious.

The key must be shared among the 'good guys' and not the 'bad guys' or it breaks. If you let users make their own keys, malware can do so as well

Just keep digging yourself a hole, and define "good guys" and "bad guys".
This is why the idea was stupid in the first place, yet you continue to back it and argue it at the same time.

Logic fail.

 

[devil22]

I think that the PGP people would disagree with you.

Yes, clearly I meant private key, and you are referring to public key to purposefully be obtuse. To allow users to have their own key, they need a private and public key, if the users can make a private and public key, so can malware. Is that more clear?

 

[Red Falcon]

Nah, I enjoy arguing with people who pretend to understand tech and think people will bow before any clueless thing they say because they an OS nobody's heard of (or wants.)

No one, except the majority of the enterprise market share.
devil22, just give it up.

You act like Linux on a whole is totally useless.
Are you really this blind?

 

[devil22]

Thank you captain obvious.

Anything for you, Major Obtuse.

Just keep digging yourself a hole, and define "good guys" and "bad guys".
This is why the idea was stupid in the first place, yet you continue to back it and argue it at the same time.

Logic fail.

good guys = users and the OEMs they trust, bad guys = malware writers. If that's a hole, then I'll dig all day. And I back it because it is a good idea, OS makers get a key, then only these OSes can run on the hardware, instead of say some rootkit that siphons all your data and financial info to Bulgaria. I know which I prefer, like I said this is a really nice hole, should be featured on world's nicest holes monthly..

 

[SkribbelKat]

Not at all, but it's really fun to annoy others while passing the time.
Come on, you should join the party!

Red Falcon for the Red Party!

I would join in, but...you know...<sarcasm> my life is full of incredible people who all are amazingly hot, never older than 24, and generally have less than 4% body fat, but are super brilliant, fun-loving, and rich, but want me to be an involved, meaningful part of their lives because they feel I bring out the best in them when I'm around. </sarcasm>

 

[c3141hf]

Yes, clearly I meant private key, and you are referring to public key to purposefully be obtuse. To allow users to have their own key, they need a private and public key, if the users can make a private and public key, so can malware. Is that more clear?

And you know not what you speak of.

PGP allows users to make both public and private keys. Trust is determined not by a central authority but by having other users sign off on your key to vouch for it.

 

[devil22]

damicatz:

Running as admin = Being a member of the Administrators group. You should not be able to elevate without a password because that forces the user to stop and think about what they are doing.

Stop and think about what you're doing is not a security boundary. I stop and think just fine about a UAC prompt, and I am a user. Additionally there is no factual data to back this up, just your gut feeling.

It is still another step in the process.

So is doing a square dance to open a bank vault, but it's not additional security.

More like a stupid way of doing things. .jpg.exe (or, .jpg.bin if you will) does not work in GNU/Linux without the user going out of their way because :


1.GNU/Linux does not hide file extensions. It will show up as executable with the appropriate file extension.

Yes, and it allows 'hello.txt' to be a malicious rootkit. Not much better for the average person, perhaps considerably worse.

2.They have to explicit mark it as executable.

The average user will copy and paste the commands to do this with no thought put into it. People who would OK a uac prompt for porn.exe will copy and paste the necessary commands to run the same file on linux.

3.Some file managers will actually refuse to allow you to open a file if the file extension does not match the contents.

Doesn't really mean much to this discussion.

 

[4saken]

So a super high end enthusiast configuration has to be brainless for Linux to be a success? What a compelling and well thought out argument.

So...why is windows such a successs? because shit just works, yeah doesnt have to be thought out. Just has to be common sense.

Lets even try dual monitors for your everyday user, which isnt uncommon at all nowadays.

Just a note. I am personally a power user of *nix. I can script you perl/bash etc all day long. Manage jboss/lamp/etc/etc in an enterprise 5000 user plus environment. I couldnt imagine using anything other than linux for this purpose.

On the same note, throwing the crap that linux has for the everyday person on the desktop, whether its home or business is nothing but a nightmare for them. Thats why windows is top dog and will be for a long long time. Steam coming to linux is going to have such a negligible impact, i am just finding it all so amusing.

 

[Red Falcon]

good guys = users and the OEMs they trust, bad guys = malware writers. If that's a hole, then I'll dig all day. And I back it because it is a good idea, OS makers get a key, then only these OSes can run on the hardware, instead of say some rootkit that siphons all your data and financial info to Bulgaria. I know which I prefer, like I said this is a really nice hole, should be featured on world's nicest holes monthly..

A hardware key will just prevent bootloader access, not prevent the intrusion into an actively running Windows OS.
As I said, it might be good in an enterprise environment running Windows, but that's about it.

You know, if you ran Linux or even OS X with boot/OS level encryption, then you wouldn't even need it.
I won't mention HP-UX, Solaris, or AIX as those words are probably too big for you to understand; I don't want to insult what little intelligence you have.

 

[c3141hf]

What root properties? And I know linux does not run with the same permissions and Windows, Windows has ACLs which are far better than linux's 9-bits of security failure. (I know linux can be configured with ACLs these days, but you seem to think linux's old permissions are actually superior.)

AGAIN, you know not of what you speak.

 

[Red Falcon]

So...why is windows such a successs? because shit just works, yeah doesnt have to be thought out. Just has to be common sense.

Windows has been a success due to a high market share on the desktop for decades now, and user ignorance.
By 'user ignorance', I mean that many people don't even know other OSes exist outside of Windows.

Apple is catching up though, and that is one of the reasons why Microsoft is literally starting to emulate Apple with everything it has been doing lately, just not very well.

"Shit just works", on Windows? Are you kidding me?
No, shit just works on OS X 10.7/8, at least out of the box, not Windows, hardly.

Lets even try dual monitors for your everyday user, which isnt uncommon at all nowadays.

To be fair, you are correct that this is not an easy task for an average person to do on Linux.

On the same note, throwing the crap that linux has for the everyday person on the desktop, whether its home or business is nothing but a nightmare for them. Thats why windows is top dog and will be for a long long time.

Windows is the top dog on the desktop, not anywhere else.
However, you just stated why Linux won't ever be big outside of an enterprise environment, and I would have to agree with you on that one.

 

[devil22]

A hardware key will just prevent bootloader access, not prevent the intrusion into an actively running Windows OS.
As I said, it might be good in an enterprise environment running Windows, but that's about it.

You know, if you ran Linux or even OS X with boot/OS level encryption, then you wouldn't even need it.
I won't mention HP-UX, Solaris, or AIX as those words are probably too big for you to understand; I don't want to insult what little intelligence you have.

The hardware key will prevent access to the boot loader, it will also prevent infections of storage, network and video controller's rom, which could be used to preserve a rootkit across re-installs. If you ran boot level encryption, malware could still take over before the boot and stay in memory then patch into the OS after it gets decrypted and loaded into memory. Secure Boot stops that. "little intelligence" is just cry-baby language for "waah, he won't let me win the argument with my standard linux user techo-babble bs." but I'll pencil in 5 minutes anyway to feel bad about that comment later tonight, does 11:35 sound good to you? I'm kinda busy at the moment.

 

[Red Falcon]

AGAIN, you know not of what you speak.

He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think he should just stick with Windows.

 

[devil22]

AGAIN, you know not of what you speak.

That's not an argument of any kind, certainly not a winning one. More like saying 'shit tastes good' then posting a picture of shit to prove it. Doesn't work like that. ACLs are far more granular than that. I can post a picture of permissions that would blow you away if you find that impressive.

 

[devil22]

He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think he should just stick with Windows.

I do know what I'm talking about, but I will stick with Windows, not sure what made you think otherwise. Was it seriously the picture of the unix permissions? LOL...

 

[c3141hf]

That's not an argument of any kind, certainly not a winning one. More like saying 'shit tastes good' then posting a picture of shit to prove it. Doesn't work like that. ACLs are far more granular than that. I can post a picture of permissions that would blow you away if you find that impressive.

Really, moving the goalpost now?

What is an ACL? Why, it is an Access Control List.

Well, what you just saw is a list of user accounts that controls what they have access to. Seems to meet the definition to me.

You can actually get more complicated, if you chose. But the average user does not need the complexity that is present by default in Windows ACLs.

 

[DrDoug]

He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
I think he should just stick with Windows.

I've been enjoying the hell out of this donnybrook. One thing for sure is that if I needed to have a hole dug for a septic tank out back then I'd hire devil22 to do it. The only problem is that I'd have to keep an eye on him or he would dig a hole clear to Australia.

In five minutes.

 

[Unknown-One]

I never said anything about a firewall, which is built-in to Linux distros, or did you not know that?
Also, the only reason to use AV programs on Linux or OS X is to filter for Windows-based viruses and malware.

First of all, yes, I know many Linux distros include firewalls. Linux is modular, not all distros include a firewall, so I was covering all my bases. Get off my ass.

Second, totally disagreed. I want antivirus protection for the OS itself. I can get an antivirus for Windows that handles windows viruses. I can get an antivirus for OSX that handles OSX viruses. I should be able to get an antivirus for Linux that handles Linux viruses...

Um, Windows has had a firewall built-in since XP, and Microsoft just integrated MSE into Win 8.

I never said Windows didn't previously have a firewall, what are you even going on about?

I said Windows 8 now includes a firewall AND an antivirus. As in, in addition to the firewall that has been included in previous versions, it now has a built-in antivirus too.

And do not downplay the inclusion of MSE into Windows 8. It's a good antivirus and having it there by default is a good step forward for security. It's something that normal users will now have by default, rather than something they have to know about and have to go and download.

It's not like Win 8 is bringing anything new to the table in that area, so why are you speaking as though it does?
Do you even know what you are talking about?

Looks like it brings plenty of new things to the table, having an antivirus by default is huge.

...do YOU even know what you're talking about?

 

[devil22]

Really, moving the goalpost now?

What is an ACL? Why, it is an Access Control List.

Well, what you just saw is a list of user accounts that controls what they have access to. Seems to meet the definition to me.

You can actually get more complicated, if you chose. But the average user does not need the complexity that is present by default in Windows ACLs.

An access control list (ACL), with respect to a computer file system, is a list of permissions attached to an object. An ACL specifies which users or system processes are granted access to objects, as well as what operations are allowed on given objects. Each entry in a typical ACL specifies a subject and an operation. For instance, if a file has an ACL that contains (Alice, delete), this would give Alice permission to delete the file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control_list - Unix permissions are not Access Control Lists, since an ACL must include a user and action. And I love how linux users just switch up and arbitrarily decide users don't need security (so long as it's not in linux.)

 

[c3141hf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control_list - Unix permissions are not Access Control Lists, since an ACL must include a user and action. And I love how linux users just switch up and arbitrarily decide users don't need security (so long as it's not in linux.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

 

[devil22]

I've been enjoying the hell out of this donnybrook. One thing for sure is that if I needed to have a hole dug for a septic tank out back then I'd hire devil22 to do it. The only problem is that I'd have to keep an eye on him or he would dig a hole clear to Australia.

In five minutes.

What hole am I in again? Because the linux obsessers have been wrong and shown to be wrong every time they have posted something here. Basically that is just one long argument through contradiction, worth about as much as the electrons carrying that idiocy into my computer screen.

 

[Red Falcon]

If you ran boot level encryption, malware could still take over before the boot and stay in memory then patch into the OS after it gets decrypted and loaded into memory. Secure Boot stops that.

If you ran a Linux or UNIX distro, this wouldn't even be necessary.
If all of this is required to just use Windows, that should show you how corruptible and volatile Windows really is.

 

[devil22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

I previously stated that linux can be configured to use ACLs, I just didn't see the need to repeat that every time I referred to linux permissions because I don't think most linux distros use it by default, and also I am getting the impression that I am arguing with someone who thinks ACLs < unix permissions in a security sense.

 

[devil22]

If you ran a Linux or UNIX distro, this wouldn't even be necessary.
If all of this is required to just use Windows, that should show you how corruptible and volatile Windows really is.

It's not necessary if I run linux because linux has so little market share that malware writers don't target it and spend lots of time and resources writing complex root kits for it, that would change if everyone used linux, so it needs to be brought up.

 

[c3141hf]

I previously stated that linux can be configured to use ACLs, I just didn't see the need to repeat that every time I referred to linux permissions because I don't think most linux distros use it by default, and also I am getting the impression that I am arguing with someone who thinks ACLs < unix permissions in a security sense.

Most distributions don't run it by default because it isn't needed for the average user.

Really, how many users even touch ACLs in Windows? Most users don't even know they exist.

You can argue all you want about how you think it is less secure but the proof is in the pudding. How many Windows computers run the backbone of the internet?

 

[Unknown-One]

Windows has been a success due to a high market share

That's like saying "windows is a success because windows is a success." lol

"Shit just works", on Windows? Are you kidding me?
No, shit just works on OS X 10.7/8, at least out of the box, not Windows, hardly.

I've found the opposite to be true. I can go from a blank system to a brand new install of Windows 8 configured and running the programs I want in about 15 minutes. No trouble at all...

Now, getting Linux set up, hoooo boy. I was on Google Hangouts the other night with a few other tech enthusiasts and installed a few Linux distros while on screen-share. Seemed like every 10 seconds we were scratching our heads in dismay at some weird decision that the developer of the distro had made. Ended up totally crashing Fedora beyond any hope of recovery trying to get VMWare Tools installed the first time, that was fun...

 

[Red Falcon]

First of all, yes, I know many Linux distros include firewalls. Linux is modular, not all distros include a firewall, so I was covering all my bases. Get off my ass.

You should have specified that then instead of making such a broad, generic statement.

Second, totally disagreed. I want antivirus protection for the OS itself. I can get an antivirus for Windows that handles windows viruses. I can get an antivirus for OSX that handles OSX viruses. I should be able to get an antivirus for Linux that handles Linux viruses...

Linux viri, really, what is this? 2001?
Also, if you knew anything about anything, you could.

That's one of the things I like about Linux, it is capable of anything, the user just has to be smart and knowledge enough to do so.
Otherwise they will be in your situation.

I never said Windows didn't previously have a firewall, what are you even going on about?

I said Windows 8 now includes a firewall AND an antivirus. As in, in addition to the firewall that has been included in previous versions, it now has a built-in antivirus too.

You totally made is sound like Windows didn't have a built-in firewall until Win 8.
Work on your damn descriptions and sentence structure if you are going to explain anything to anyone other than yourself.

And do not downplay the inclusion of MSE into Windows 8. It's a good antivirus and having it there by default is a good step forward for security. It's something that normal users will now have by default, rather than something they have to know about and have to go and download.

I won't downplay MSE ever as I fully agree with you that it is an awesome AV program.
I only wish it would have been included as an option to install with Win 7, and for stand-alone systems without AV management and average users, it is a great program.

Looks like it brings plenty of new things to the table, having an antivirus by default is huge.

Um, no, it's not "huge", but it is definitely a good feature.
Also, MSE is not "plenty of new things", it's one thing; and I know that Win 8 is obviously bringing more to the table than just MSE, but once again, you are not explaining yourself very well by using such broad statements.

...do YOU even know what you're talking about?

Yes, and clearly, by the sounds of it, you do not.

 

[Red Falcon]

It's not necessary if I run linux because linux has so little market share that malware writers don't target it and spend lots of time and resources writing complex root kits for it, that would change if everyone used linux, so it needs to be brought up.

"Security by obscurity" is a really old argument, and one that I don't stand by.
Linux has changed leagues from where it was 10-15 years ago, and what few security leaks that were present have long since been rectified.

Also, no OS is 100% secure, but you make it sound like Windows is far superior to Linux in terms of security, when that is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard yet.

 

[devil22]

Most distributions don't run it by default because it isn't needed for the average user.

Really, how many users even touch ACLs in Windows? Most users don't even know they exist.

You can argue all you want about how you think it is less secure but the proof is in the pudding. How many Windows computers run the backbone of the internet?

And why do you think that has anything to do with security? I imagine a lot of the internet is linux because it is free and fairly manageable when dedicated to a single task. Also I see linux boxes get hacked all the time, even big linux sites. Sure you can blame the application they were running, but it's no different than what happens to a Windows box.

And how am I supposed to know how many users touch ACLs? This argument started because someone (you or falcon) insinuated that standard unix permissions are more secure than Windows. That's the definition of goal post shifting, just done over too large an amount of techo babble for you to realize it.

 

[devil22]

"Security by obscurity" is a really old argument, and one that I don't stand by.
Linux has changed leagues from where it was 10-15 years ago, and what few security leaks that were present have long since been rectified.

Also, no OS is 100% secure, but you make it sound like Windows is far superior to Linux in terms of security, when that is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard yet.

Complete straw man, I didn't say Windows is far superior in security. I'm saying that there is no security reason to move from Windows to Linux. Period. And Windows has also changed in 10 years, a lot. Basically, as far as I am concerned, they are more or less equal security wise, which again is why I see no security reason to switch.

 

[Unknown-One]

You should have specified that then instead of making such a broad, generic statement.

Generic and sweeping? I said a firewall was a requirement for me using the OS. How is that anything but common sense?

You're making arguments out of nothing...

Linux viri, really, what is this? 2001?
Also, if you knew anything about anything, you could.

That's one of the things I like about Linux, it is capable of anything, the user just has to be smart and knowledge enough to do so.
Otherwise they will be in your situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "my situation"

I can use Linux, i have used Linux, I have found that I DO NOT enjoy using Linux, so I don't use Linux.

And the "this is Linux, you only need an AV to find viruses for other platforms" attitude is really, really off-putting.

You totally made is sound like Windows didn't have a built-in firewall until Win 8.
Work on your damn descriptions and sentence structure if you are going to explain anything to anyone other than yourself.

No I didn't, you read into it what you wanted to read into it to make more arguments out of nothing. It's getting old, and fast.

Also, MSE is not "plenty of new things", it's one thing; and I know that Win 8 is obviously bringing more to the table than just MSE, but once again, you are not explaining yourself very well by using such broad statements./quote]
Not explaining myself well? Oh come on, did you expect me to list every single new feature coming to Windows 8?

I was obviously stating that there are a pile of new features in 8, and I considered MSE a new one. Did you expect me to list every single feature simply to point out the one relevant to the discussion at the time? Come on man...

 

[Red Falcon]

That's like saying "windows is a success because windows is a success." lol

If you have followed Microsoft's history since the 1980's, you would understand what I said.

I've found the opposite to be true. I can go from a blank system to a brand new install of Windows 8 configured and running the programs I want in about 15 minutes. No trouble at all...

That is a complete load of shit; maybe the OS by itself.
What programs are you running? IE and Wordpad?

It takes FAR longer to install 3rd party programs on any Windows OS than 15 minutes for everything.
Are you just imaging the system, because if so, then yeah, 15 minutes would potentially realistic, and that could be said for any OS+programs in existence with an image.

If you aren't imaging the system, 15 minutes for Win8+apps is a lie and/or a completely ignorant statement.

Now, getting Linux set up, hoooo boy. I was on Google Hangouts the other night with a few other tech enthusiasts and installed a few Linux distros while on screen-share. Seemed like every 10 seconds we were scratching our heads in dismay at some weird decision that the developer of the distro had made. Ended up totally crashing Fedora beyond any hope of recovery trying to get VMWare Tools installed the first time, that was fun...

You obviously don't know how to use Linux if you and those so called "tech enthusiasts" (LOL) were having that many issues with Fedora, for crying out loud.
Your ignorance is not a reason why Linux should not be used, it is just a reason why you should not use Linux.

 

[Unknown-One]

Aug, really not a fan of the lack of edit in this sub-forum, would have cleaned up the end of that last post a lot...

Anyway, if you want to have an actual discussion, great. If you're just going to keep intentionally misreading people's posts and then attempting to call them out on "mistakes" then I'm done here. Just going to quote Jon Stewart on this one.

Mr. Romeny, hanging your argument on an attack on a person's slight grammatical misstep is what people do in an argument when they're completely f***ed and they KNOW they have no argument!

 

[Red Falcon]

And why do you think that has anything to do with security? I imagine a lot of the internet is linux because it is free and fairly manageable when dedicated to a single task.

If you are talking about the desktop Linux distros, not all of them are free.
RELD/RELS and SLED/SLES are not free, nor are many of their sub-branch distros, so wtf are you talking about?

Also I see linux boxes get hacked all the time, even big linux sites. Sure you can blame the application they were running, but it's no different than what happens to a Windows box.

If an application gets hacked, that isn't Linux' fault, it's the fault of developers who created the app.
Linux itself isn't getting hacked, unlike Windows itself which does get hacked, ALL of the time.

Yeah, it's very different than what happens to a "Windows box".
You're starting to defend the undefendable.

I'm saying that there is no security reason to move from Windows to Linux. Period.

Once again proving your ignorance of OSes outside of Windows.

And Windows has also changed in 10 years, a lot.

Oh yeah, UAC, huge change.

Basically, as far as I am concerned, they are more or less equal security wise, which again is why I see no security reason to switch.

LOL!!!

 

[Red Falcon]

I can use Linux, i have used Linux, I have found that I DO NOT enjoy using Linux, so I don't use Linux..

You obviously cannot and do not know how to use Linux with all of the problems you are having.
I'm not saying you can't use and enjoy Windows, if you like it, go for it.

But don't try to knock Linux with FUD because you simply do not know how to use or configure it at all.