Linux lasting longer against Net attacks

Unpatched Linux systems are surviving longer on the Internet before being compromised, according to a report from the Honeynet Project released this week.

The data, from a dozen networks, showed that the average Linux system lasts three months before being compromised, a significant increase from the 72 hours life span of a Linux system in 2001. Unpatched Windows systems continue to be compromised more quickly, sometimes within minutes, the Honeynet Project report stated.

The results are probably due to two trends, said Lance Spitzner, president of Honeynet, which develops software for deploying computer systems as bait for online attackers. The default installations of new Linux systems are much more secure than previous versions of the open-source operating system, he said. Secondly, attackers seem to be much more concentrated on Windows systems than on Linux systems, and on attempting to fool desktop users, of which the vast majority use Windows.

"Everybody is focused on Windows," Spitzner said. "There is more money (for an attacker) to be made on the Windows systems."

The study is the latest data on the relative security of Linux systems versus Microsoft Windows. Last week, students found dozens of flaws in software that runs on Linux systems, and a research report stated that a thorough analysis of the Linux kernel turned up hundreds of flaws. However, in relative terms, those numbers are low compared to commercial applications.

Honeynets, a term coined by the project, are networks of computers that are placed on the Internet with the expectation that they will be compromised by attackers. The networks are heavily monitored, and the data is used to research the latest tactics of online miscreants.

While some of the Windows XP systems on the honeynets used for the latest study were compromised within minutes of being placed on the Internet, newer versions of the Linux operating system from Red Hat failed to be compromised by random attacks for more than two months.

Debbie Fry Wilson, director of product management for the security response centre at Microsoft, said that the company's latest operating system is more secure than the report suggests.

"While it is not clear which version of Windows was used during the study, we feel that a Windows XP SP2 configuration with the Windows firewall enabled is the most resilient client operating system available in the market and can withstand attack much longer," Wilson said. "We are pleased that the report indicates that two Windows-based honeynets in Brazil withstood attack for several months. However, we are not certain that the report provides conclusive data based on a controlled and scientific study comparing the two operating systems."

Every Windows system compromised during the study had its security breached by a worm.

However, Spitzner stressed that the Honeynet Project does not have enough Windows systems deployed to offer meaningful data on that operating system's security. Moreover, the report does not specify what version of Windows XP had been running on the systems that had been compromised and whether any Service Pack upgrades had been installed.

The study did find that more recent versions of the Linux operating system lasted longer on the Internet without patching.

Talkback 4 comments

    Heck in the Main windows XP is ...Anonymous -- 23/12/04

    Heck in the Main windows XP is pretty good I don't have issues with it at all, security or stability it never crashes.
    LINUX well hardware support STILL sucks

    Linux users are fooling themse ...Anonymous -- 03/01/05

    Linux users are fooling themselves to thimk that any virus or worm hacker can not break into there servers,

    Just like any software or computer program it contains bugs that come from complex designs as the program gets puts together these are never picked up and any fool can run a binary code that can send any server into a loop or shut it down,

    security is only as good as the user wants it to be the easies way to get into any computer is over the internet is through the ip addressing binary code even if your using a firewall hardware or software as ip addresses don't change every second or minute.

    this is why so many computer servers fail a simple binary security test and why virus writers are able to crash your system within seconds because all codes are converted to binary in the end.

    <quote> security is only ...Anonymous -- 06/01/05

    <quote>
    security is only as good as the user wants it to be the easies way to get into any computer is over the internet is through the ip addressing binary code even if your using a firewall hardware or software as ip addresses don't change every second or minute.

    this is why so many computer servers fail a simple binary security test and why virus writers are able to crash your system within seconds because all codes are converted to binary in the end.
    </quote>

    huh?

    If you're unemployed, why not start up a security audit firm and test out your theory. I'd be glad to have you come to my place and try to crash my Linux server.

    What exactly is a "simple binary security test" anyway?

    sheesh

    I have to agree with the findi ...Anonymous -- 17/03/05

    I have to agree with the findings of this report - both in terms of the better ruggedness of newer version of Linux and in the poor ability of Windows XP to withstand attack.

    Not that many people have WinXP SP2 install CDs - the majority have older versions (Gold or SP1). The conventional approach is to install the operating system, jump on the 'net and use Windows Update to patch the system.

    Based on the frequency of hits my (standalone) firewall takes from worms, I wouldn't have a chance of getting SP2 downloaded before my machine was compromised.

    Interestingly, one of my work colleagues had exactly this experience. Starting with a clean install of Windows XP SP1, he started setting up his ADSL account. Before he even had opened his web browser to the 'net, he was infected with S****er.

    Because Linux has always taken the approach of having no services except those explicitly requested open by default, a clean unpatched system is effectively only vulnerable to flaws in the TCP/IP stack itself. However, this code has been worked over so thoroughly for such a long time that no known security hole exists.

    It is simply BECAUSE Windows opens so many ports by default (in the interest of friendly peer-to-peer network setup and similar) that it is so open to attack in its default configuration.

    While SP2 is definitely a lot better that SP1, the firewall still opens some ports and vulnerabilities have been found using some of these. Basically, you need to fully patch your machine before it gets on the 'net.

    The problem is that the vast majority of users do not have an external firewall to protect them. This is improving with more ADSL modems incorporating simple NAT firewalls, but it does not change the issue - if you put a pure WinXP SP1 or pure WinXP SP2 machine directly on the 'net, you run a high risk of being compromised - very rapidly with SP1 and moderately quickly with SP2.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

Tags

Back to top

Featured