Security consideration, using a non-x86 server

[Eric Dunbar]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:37:18 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:52:05PM -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> 
> > The server can be accessed from the internet - so security was
> > important of course.  Linux is a safe operating system. Nevertheless
> > from time to time  a new security hole is found and needs to be
> > patched.  All automated attacks and worms are usually designed to
> > break into x86 systems.  Even if you patch your system always in time,
> > it gives you a much nicer  feeling to know that your system is kind of
> > immune by design.
> 
> In this case, it's a bit more like "immune by coincidence". :-)  If and when
> Linux/powerpc systems become popular enough to make it worthwhile, rest
> assured that worms will target them as well.

But, since they're not that widespread they have that inherent
security advantage (as do any other non-x86 architectures :). There
are disadvantages to being small, but there are also advantages.

I recently took a look at the top apps on download.com for Windows vs.
Mac and the items that were tops were rather telling.

Adware removal apps were number one and two on Windows by an order of
magnitude over P2P/MP3-swapping software which themselves were one
order of magnitude greater than the same versions on the Mac list (top
positions). On Mac list, no sign of virus/adware removal programmes.
This left Mac users time to focus on d/l other non-P2P-related
software and enjoying their illicitly gotten MP3s ;-P.

The same story applies to GNU/Linux (but since it's a more fragment
"platform" (with users who tend to get their apps from non-standard
sources) such numbers are hard to come by) -- less time wasted
protecting your privacy, and more time working (cough, playing).

Eric.