Study finds Windows more secure than Linux

The Seattle Time ^ | 2/17/05 | Brier Dudley

[rit]

SAN FRANCISCO — Believe it or not, a Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers.

The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, "Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux." One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint.

"I actually was wrong. The results are very surprising, and there are going to be some people who are skeptical," said Richard Ford, a computer-science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who favors Linux.

[Poser]

" Given Microsoft's campaign against Linux, it's obvious that Microsoft thinks Linux is a threat to Windows."

I think it's called hedging your bets. Nothing lasts forever, but MS has a pretty good track record so far. In any case, Linux is a direct replacement for UNIX in many applications.

[ShadowAce]

I have about 100 MB for my /boot partition, and about 1GB for my swap partition. I never get anyclose to using it all though, as I have 1GB of RAM.

/home is placed on its own separate partition (and disk), and / is placed on the remaining space. For instance, I have two drives, /dev/hde, and /dev/hdg (don't ask why), /dev/hdg is reserved for /home, while /dev/hde1 is /boot, /dev/hde2 is swap, and /dev/hde3 is /.

[usgator]

Thanks.  I'll give this a try tonight!

[Bush2000]

Depends on the case. I remember Microsoft going to Largo, Florida to get that successful migration and anti-FUD nightmare reversed. Largo's IT chief said the Microsoft reps left after admitting they couldn't match the low Linux TCO (although they could have given better TC0).

WTF else would you expect the Largo IT chief to say? If he admitted otherwise, he wouldn't have a job.

[antiRepublicrat]

WTF else would you expect the Largo IT chief to say? If he admitted otherwise, he wouldn't have a job.

So now you're accusing him of lying? Admit it, TCO is on a case-by-case basis, and this was a clear case where Microsoft couldn't match the Linux TCO.

[N3WBI3]

US:

Much depends on what youre going to use it for:

Swap: 512M, at most... if the box has a good amount of memory you can scale that back to 256M

Boot: 125M, you can go lower but when you update a Linux kernel many distros leave the old one there as a fall back if the update breaks something.

Usr: if this box is just for home use I would not bother with a usr partition, just put the rest in '/'..

[usgator]

Thanks.  So, I should do the partitions on (hdb2) in this order?
/boot (125m) /swap (512m) /usr (remainder or partition 30 gigs)
/hdb5           /hdb6 /hdb7
The other partition is a Fat32 partition with remainder of the 120 gig drive.

When I copy the boot.lnx using dd if=/dev/hdb2 of=/mnt/boot.lnx bs=512 count=1, the boot.lnx file contains a bunch of gibberish with something to the effect of "disk not bootable" embedded inside.

Any ideas?  This is driving me crazy.  I've been trying to get Linux to boot for like 2 weeks or more.

[N3WBI3]

Well US note that hdb2 is itself a partition, (the second partition on your second IDE harddrive). What you want to do is create three partitions

hdb2: 125M
hdb3: 512M (type Linux swap)
hdb4: Whatever is left..

you have a mandrake CD and you cant boot and set up off of that?

[usgator]

I know about partitions, sorry, should have worded that better.

you have a mandrake CD and you cant boot and set up off of that

"That's the fact, jack" =)   I go thru the whole setup, no errors.  I have in my windows boot.ini file the correct info for a dual boot.  The problem is when I try to copy the boot.lnx file.  Inside this file is the junk with the "disk not bootable" written inside of it.  When I try to boot into Linux using the boot.ini it goes into the black screen with some "Y"s and indecypherable characters.

This is very frustrating, and I don't want to give up, but I'm wasting way too much time loading, reformatting, reloading, etc.  Any help you can give would go a long way toward helping to (maybe) convert an MS person to Linux.

[N3WBI3]

I have not done a floppy install in years but Ill dig around and see what I can find. I might reccommend fedora..

[usgator]

My computer is about a year old and does not have a floppy drive.  That's why I am trying to copy the boot/lnx onto the hdb2 /mnt drive .

[ShadowAce]

When it comes to dual boot systems, I have a strict method of doing things that works 100% of the time:

1. Install Windows.
2. Turn off computer, move Windows HDD to slave or secondary master position.
3. Install Linux on new master drive, putting bootloader (Grub or Lilo) into the MBR of the new master drive.
4. Edit Linux bootloader to point to Windows as an option. It is possible to make Windows the default OS in this way.

This process allows you to (a) install Windows in the manner it likes, and (b), install Linux exactly like a stand-alone distro, thus ensuring that everything works correctly.

If you already have an existing Windows installation, you can obviously skip step 1 above. Just move the drive to a secondary position and move your new, empty HDD to the master position.

[N3WBI3]

Why cant you boot off the CD?

[usgator]

I'm a software person and know next to nothing about hardware or system admin.

I have stuff in Windows that I don't want to lose.   It is backed up, of course, but it would take a LOT of work to put it back, plus licensed downloads, etc.  If something goes wrong ... well, it won't be a good thing.

Actually, I do have another PC I can try this method on, and probably will, but it doesn't help me with this one.

If something does go wrong, and, of course it will, how can I recover the original MBR, etc.  I am worried if this is too great a risk just to get Linux installed.  I want to install this, but cannot risk destroying MS at this point.  My job depends upon having MS working.

I DID have this dual-boot (Win XP/Mandrake) running once before on this PC, so I know it IS capable.  I lost the Mandrake kernal (completely my fault) and had to reinstall.  The first time I installed it I had some guy screw it up and I lost Windows and CANNOT take that chance again.

[ShadowAce]

...how can I recover the original MBR,...

I think you are misunderstanding me. The linux bootloader goes on the MBR of the new master--not your Windows drive. You will not touch your windows drive at all during the installation of Linux onto the new master drive.

[usgator]

What do you mean by "boot off the CD"?

I can boot, use rescue and get into the HDB2.

Is this what you mean?

I just want to get to the KDE interface or Login or whatever, I don;t care if I have to put a key in, push the clutch or whatever as long as I get there! =)

[usgator]

Interesting, still a bit worried.  As I put in the other post, I had some guy who claimed to be a "Linux Guru" do something like this and he KILLED my PC.

[ShadowAce]

Interesting, still a bit worried.

I totally understand. If you are not comfortable taking apart a computer, I wouldn't do it. However, other than my suggestion, I am unable to help. I will continue to watch this thread to see if I can learn something, thougk.

Good luck.