| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Scary Solaris, AIX hole unearthed | |
|
||
| Time: 10:59 EST/15:59 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
A security hole in software from Sun Microsystems and IBM could allow malicious hackers to take control of powerful servers running in many corporations and universities, security experts said on Wednesday. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:45:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2001 4:16:53 PM |
|
#7 - I've got more letters than that: Solaris 8
:) |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/14/2001 12:08:18 PM |
|
#10. How do you know?
This could have been out in the wild for months, leaving many machines vulnerable. The Unix vendors have historically been less responsive than Microsoft. #12. RedHat 73, Microsoft 58. Yeah, right... |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/14/2001 2:53:50 PM |
|
#12 - Actually, the majority of bugs for closed-source operating systems are found by researchers and software developers who are responsible enough to inform Microsoft and allow them to produce a fix before they release the information.
The majority of "hackers" are actually "script kiddies" that just use what other people create to "hack" machines and get credit for something they really had little to do with. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.240.94) at 12/14/2001 11:32:41 PM |
| #15 As soon as you show me that the home page of microsoft.com was hacked you can tell me that a well maintained Windows server is less secure than a Sun server. Interesting that with all of the IIS vulnerabilities I've not seen microsoft.com having problems. Considering it runs IIS 5 on Windows 2000 with a few servers running betas of Windows.NET server all with SQL Server backends, I'd say that microsoft.com is rather unbreakable (to steal the words from Larry Ellison). |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 12/15/2001 5:19:50 AM |
|
#22 - Why do you think it's worked up until this point?
Case in point: There was a recent hole found in the telnet daemon used by nearly every Linux and BSD distribution, except OpenBSD. Only thing is, it's not exactly recent... it's been there for about 25 years. The exploit allows remote root, by the way. So, tell me where all your "experts" were for 25 years? I suppose you'll counter with the claim that open source operating systems have fewer exploits than Windows, proving that they are more secure. Well, there are three problems with that claim: 1.) It's far from true. Redhat has almost double the known exploits of Windows just this year. 2.) Even if it were true, that does not mean that open source is more secure. That's a false causation assumption. It could be, for instance (and more probably) that the open source products are attacked far less than Microsoft products, and are therefore less likely to have high numbers of exploits. 3.) Open source relies on the people who find the holes telling others nicely. (As do closed source discoveries.) A hacker is FAR more likely to find a hole if he has the code right there in front of him, thereby increasing the chance that a dangerous hole will be exploited before a patch is released. Now, I know you will counter that last one with the idea that along with those hackers are security experts looking at the code. That may well be true, but it is far *less* common than hackers looking at the code. There are MANY more hackers than there are security experts, nor do all security experts examine all code, as the telnet hole previously mentioned highlights. It goes back to the old adage: Which is easier to rob? A bank which you've only seen the outside of the building, or a bank to which you have all the floor plans? The point, is you can claim that more eyes == more security until you're blue in the face, but nobody has ever offered proof of this claim. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.240.94) at 12/15/2001 9:00:20 PM |
|
#17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22
Those are all rather interesting incidents, of which I was already aware. None of them, however, occurred to the homepage of microsoft.COM. For the last several months at least this has been the page found at the following URL http://www.microsoft.com/ms.htm. THIS page (so far as I know) has never been hacked. This is the page I was referring to. Also, as your articles indicate, the hacks were allowed by known exploits. If the admins involved in those particular cases were doing their jobs, the hacks couldn't have occurred. Also, DNS issues and DDoS should really be consider server OS hacks. If anything they are the territory of the network architects in the case of DNS and the router hardware in the case of DDoS. Many non sites that do not run Windows servers have been affected by DDoS, so this hardly supports your claim. The fact that your choice of server operating systems has worked for you so far doesn't add clout to your argument. I have never been hacked either nor the servers I work with and the run or have run NT 4, Windows 2000, or Windows.NET Server. Internal to the companies I've worked for my workstations have not been hacked either. So, Windows has worked for me, just as your operating system has worked for you. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:45:05 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
