[linux-elitists] Are we Dead Yet? (or "For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!)
Fri Jan 21 15:02:44 PST 2005
Quoting Don Marti (email@example.com):
> You're not talking about the Honeynet report, are you?
> Report date: 17 December 2004. EOL date of _latest_
> Linux release cracked (Red Hat 9): 30 April 2004.
> I don't really see what the report shows, other than
> "unmaintained software on an Internet host will
> eventually get compromised."
Indeed, I'm getting really tired of seeing bullshit "reports" about Linux
security by self-promoting security-industry flacks.
A total of 24 unpatched Unix honeypots were deployed, of
which 19 were Linux, primarily Red Hat.
[...] Of these, only four Linux honeypots (three RH 7.3 and
one RH 9.0) and three Solaris honeypots were compromised.
Two of the Linux systems were compromised by brute password
guessing and not a specific vulnerability.
One is moved to wonder _why_ you would leave a glaringly obsolete
Linux distribution unpatched. Both RH 9 and 7.3 are now EOL; even
errata for them are no longer published: Updates, as you say, ended
And, c'mon: Those distributions were released 20 months and 32 months
prior to the study's date of operation, respectively.
I'd have had a _little_ respect for the study if they'd at least
included a disclaimer to the effect that "Naturally, it was a really
obviously crazy stunt to run these obsolete systems, in December 2004,
completely without customary patching and exposed to the global
Internet, but using more-realistic and modern systems would have made
for a dull study."
But, sadly, they did not.
I'd say I was disappointed, but I've learned not to expect much from
I note that the paper is unsigned. How convenient: Nobody specific to
Cheers, Hardware: The part you kick.
Rick Moen Software: The part you boot.
More information about the linux-elitists