Originally posted by Jack GableLike I've mentioned earlier I haven't used Knoppix in a while (I got my own customized CD which has taken quite a different path than Knoppix). I would think that the firewall has all service ports closed by default, but I couldn't know for sure without looking it up (and I'm not about to do that).
So what service ports are open by default in the standard Knoppix distro or are they all closed?
Try asking on the Knoppix discussion forum:
http://www.knoppix.net/forum/
No i don't think I'll bother.
The point I was making, is that in my experience most Linux distros install with a load of open ports. It is all very well telling windows users to migrate but if they have no idea about this and just assume "it's linux - it's secure" they may well have a shock.
I known there are many graphical system management tools now, but again many things are best acheived by editting a text file 'somewhere' in the filesystem. Again very confusing for GUI orientated users.
Windows has its place as does Linux but it depends on the user...
Originally posted by Jack GableThat's funny, cause from the top of my head I can't think of even one linux distro who has "a load of open ports" by default. Maybe this is so on your specific planet?
The point I was making, is that in my experience most Linux distros install with a load of open ports.
Port 80 may be open by default (but you usually gets to choose this when installing).
Originally posted by Jack GableThis is quite true. If you expect a song and dance you're in for a disapointment. A linuxbased distro is, of course, as secure as the user makes it. Windows has been a popular target for hackers and (worse) crackers because so many people are using it. Find a security hole in windows and rely on people's lazyness not to update their systems and you're in. GNU/Linux are starting to see the affect of popularity now that hackers and crackers has begun targeting those systems as well.
It is all very well telling windows users to migrate but if they have no idea about this and just assume "it's linux - it's secure" they may well have a shock.
But by default all popular GNU/Linux systems that I know of (fedora, suse, mandrake, knoppix and so on) are quite safe, as opposed to windows installations. The windows XP firewall really doesn't cut it, so you are bound to download and install a specific firewall (I recommend ZoneAlarm, by the way).
Also, it is my experience that bugs and security holes are fixed much faster in the linux world than the windows world. That could be as a result of linux users being more aware of the issues and able to detect intrusions much better than the average windows user so it really doesn't say much about the system itself, I agree.
Originally posted by Jack GableAnd again you're partially right. Like I've said in a previous post, if a windows user comes to linux and expects it to be exactly like windows (s)he's in for a disapointment. Linux is better than windows in many ways, but just like windows did, in the beginning (if you can recall the days of Dos->Windows), require training, so does GNU/Linux requires a time of adjustment. It is not nearly as bad as it was a few years back though. For the average user installing fedora (for instance) it's really quite simple to install and keep programs updated (much like windows update but you can install a whole host of programs whose equivalents you would have to buy in the windows world). Not much has to be done using the command prompt anymore, but I still find it the best way to achieve things because it's usually faster than having to click through wizards and the like.
but again many things are best acheived by editting [sic] a text file 'somewhere' in the filesystem. Again very confusing for GUI orientated users.
Originally posted by Jack GableYou speak the truth but with a twist. Windows and Linux actually has the same place. This is why they've become competing systems.
Windows has its place as does Linux but it depends on the user...
Linux is still the unchallenged ruler on the server market (and I expect it will be for quite some time). Windows is still the unchallenged ruler for desktop users (and I expect that won't change either in the near future). But both Microsoft and the Linux community are working to take control of both the server and desktop market. So, it's a sort of war between the two.
I've always been the one to stand for reason and I think Open-Source makes much more sense than commercially controlled systems.
You're right that in the end it's up to the user. So only time will tell where we'll all end up.
Competition is a good thing though. I believe that one of the reasons that Microsoft has finally started to take security and stability seriously is because GNU/Linux systems has started to advance on Microsoft territory.
I also believe that one of the reasons why Microsoft finally decided to rewrite their browser to be more secure, fast and standards-compliant is because the open-source alternatives has gained a lot more ground these past few years.
And the Microsoft initiative now being discussed to support an open format in the MS Office Suite package is most likely because Open Office has had its userbase grown in the past two years.
So if nothing else, by challenging MS, the open-source community has also, indirectly, improved the situation for MS followers who won't leave their good old windows and office suite for the alternatives.
Originally posted by FabianFnas"Everything is just fine and dandy, thank you", he answered when his wife's secret lover - whom he never suspected; he never suspected she had a lover even - asked him: "How's the marriage Joe?" 😀
My MS Windows works perfectly fine.
Is anything wrong?
Originally posted by stockenSorry, you must have misunderstood me.
"Everything is just fine and dandy, thank you", he answered when his wife's secret lover - whom he never suspected; he never suspected she had a lover even - asked him: "How's the marriage Joe?" 😀
I just asked:
My MS Windows works perfectly fine.
Is anything wrong?
Why change anything that works?
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf you feel that everything is fine with your computer (having no problems whatsoever) then I guess you should stick with it. But make sure you have a good firewall and antivirus protection. Why?
Why change anything that works?
Without that kind of protection you won't even know you have problems (which is what my somewhat offensive post above is about). In fact, it's not you per se having problems. Let me explain:
- Person A is a cracker set to bring down a few email servers
- Person B is an unsuspecting computer owner without protection (firewall and antivirus)
- Person A has software that allows him/her to access other peoples computers using security holes in the operating systems
- Person A locates Person B:s computer, uploads a small program to Person B:s computer and disconnects.
- Person B has no idea that this has happened, and continues using his/her computer as usual.
- A few weeks passes (maybe months) until Person A has located enough unprotected computers and uploaded his/her little program to them
- Person A decides to attack a server, and using a special program (s)he can contact all the computers online that has been "infected" with the little program
- Person A orders all those computers (thousands) to attack a certain port on a specific server, all at the same time.
- The server goes down and all that Person B noticed was that his/her computer slowed down for a while.
---
There are many, many other scenarios that actually happen every now and then without unsuspecting computer users knowing it (such as using their computers to store illegal material). So, if you want to stick with Windows on your computer, by all means do so, but make sure you also have it protected behind a firewall and antivirus software, that you keep those programs as well as Windows itself updated and you would do yourself and the world a big favour.
Here's what Microsoft has to say on the matter:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/viruses/video_virusworm.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/video1.mspx
---
Of course if you already have good protection and keeps it updated, then just disregard what I've said here. Perhaps it's useful to someone else.
Originally posted by stockenRight you are.
Of course if you already have good protection and keeps it updated, then just disregard what I've said here. Perhaps it's useful to someone else.
If you introduce new systems to solve a old problems, then you introduce new problems that you not as easily can solve.
Better to have problems that you know than totally new problems that you know nothing about.
If you have the interest and time to experiment with Knoppix - then do it.
If you don't mind new problems and love to solve these problems - then use Knoppix.
But if you are like the most of us - stick to what you already have.
And of course - use firewalls, anti-virus software, and take all safety measures that you know of.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou might think of linux as being introduced to solve the problems of windows, but that's not the case at all. Linux is a Unix clone and unix systems (in a great variety) was around 20 or so years before windows came into being. So, linux systems has a lot of experience and testing behind them which is why they are considered safer in the first place.
If you introduce new systems to solve a old problems, then you introduce new problems that you not as easily can solve.
I understand what you're saying about people not wanting to learn a system that is new to them. This is actually an interesting phenomenon I had the pleasure of observing just a few months back. A "friend" of mine (friend is to stretch the word far, but anyway) wanted to try out linux, so he went and got himself a copy of fedora, installed it and used it. He ran into a couple of problems that he couldn't solve right away. He got tired, gave up, got back to windows and then complained to me that linux sucks (I hadn't even suggested linux to him, but he felt that attacking me with his problems were ok cause I use it and speak highly of it). We got into a discussion on this and that and I managed to pull out information from him about his windows experiences. When it came down to it, he had gone through a multitude of problems this past year on his windows machine (everything ranging from problems installing programs to Internet access slowing to a grinding halt and programs being shut down for inexplicable reasons). He never ones complained about those but just accepted them as they surfaced.
I don't know. I found it strange that he would be so negative to a system that he got for free, he could customize to his every need and which had a huge support all over Internet if he'd just googled on the problems at hand, when the alternative is a system that's not for free (but rather expensive), which he cannot customize to his every need and which has support on given hours only.