Linux infection proves Windows malware monopoly is over

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Basil Chupin wrote:
> On 15/06/10 20:22, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>    
>>> I am not sure that this really answers the question....
>>>      
>> A properly setup and maintained Linux box will not be cracked.
>>    
> 
> 
> If you say so, but then it is only you stating it.....

Well, with the reports of remote root exploits of sendmail and BIND 
hitting zero lately, I guess I have a good chance of hosts with a 
certain range of services making my statement stand.

But, of course, being able to drop something in the hope of it being run 
as root does count I guess. I wonder what the current state of affairs 
with regards to buffer overruns and the like...

> 
> 
>>>> DJB
>>>>        
>>> Who is DJB?
>>>      
>> Dan J. Berstein.
>>    
> 
> Who is Dan J. Berstein?
> 

A very busy and maybe boring person?


> 
>>>>    ran a class not too long ago where his students concentrating on
>>>> find security holes in daemons...they found a fair few and wrote exploit
>>>> code IIRC.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Doesn't really confirm anything for me - sorry :-) .
>>>
>>> Facts, man, facts :-) .
>>>      
>> What, the long list of security vulnerabilities (which have been fixed -
>> except very recent ones maybe) for Linux and for software like sendmail,
>> BIND and other stuff not evidence enough for you that Linux boxes can be
>> cracked if not locked down and maintained properly?
>>    
> 
> 
> References, old boy, references..... :-) . Without references what you 
> write is no more credible than the writings of that journo wot wrote the 
> article which is now being talked about here.... :-) .
> 

/me shrugs. I am sure someone will come out with references to the 
contrary if I made a wrong assertion.

Feel free to prove me wrong old chap.