Originally posted by perspectoff
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Should I switch?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by zebedeeboss View Post...
For me the only one of those three requirements to hold true is - Kubuntu will be more secure.
Unlike Windows 7, Linux does not have "ActiveX" controls which can fire off executables without your permission. UAC doesn't increase security as much as it transfers responsibility/blame -- most users don't know if a UAC request should be honored or not because most requests do not identify the purpose for an executable, or the reason given may be false. That's why many Windows users turn off the UAC ... it annoys them. Microsoft has gone a long way toward security by offering "Microsoft Security Essentials" (which, IMO, is the best AV available for Windows) with automatic updates free of charge to Windows users but that approach still suffers from the fact that MSE cannot detect malware which is not in its signature database. To get into that database a malware must infect tens to thousands of Windows boxes and be noticed, somehow, so that Microsoft and/or security houses can isolate it, create a recognition signature, and add that signature to the next vaccine database update. Your box could be one of those "tens to thousands", and it could cost you plenty. Months can pass between release of a virus and the inclusion of its signature in a vaccine database that gets downloaded and installed on the user's machine, unless it is so serious Microsoft puts it on the "Zero Day" fast track and makes it the topic of a widely disseminated PR campaign.
In Linux the steps necessary to get an infection from an email payload are:
1) Save the attachment as a file on the HD (Linux can only execute files saved on the HD)
2) Add the execute permission to that file.
3) Open a Konsole and execute that file.
About the only way those three steps can be taken is if the user has been conned (social engineering) into doing so. (Promises to see porn or get rich prompt lots of folks to do stupid things).
Also, like Windows, you can infect your Linux box if you run as root, especially if you browse the Internet and visit dodgy sites. NEVER run as root!
Also, like Windows, your Linux box can get owned if you use to weak a password, or if you run without a firewall to protect against hacking on your back ports. Kubuntu comes with a firewall installed which blocks all ports, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Also, like Windows, your Linux box can get infected if you download programs/applications from dodgy sites. That's why it is recommended when first using Kubuntu that you only install application from the repositories, or from sites like Oracle, Adobe, Nokia, Launchpad, etc...
AND, no matter what that "scanner" tells you when you open a website, there are NO viruses on your computer that need their nifty removal tool to clear up.
Originally posted by zebedeeboss View PostNow for the big plus points for Linux - Its Free - The Kubuntu Community is Great - plenty of people about to help and "Willing" to help. Too many forums are full of "Experts" who simply sit there with a superior smug posture looking down on you and scorning you for not knowing.
Originally posted by zebedeeboss View PostKubuntu forums are 100% the opposite, they are helpful, friendly and quick to come back with help and guidance. if you're going to change, Kubuntu is the way to go."A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreyGeek View PostAnd we don't penalize you for preferring or running Windows. One uses what they have to use.Windows no longer obstructs my view.
Using Kubuntu Linux since March 23, 2007.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sherlock Holmes
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreyGeek View Post---
Kubuntu comes with a firewall installed which blocks all ports, so that shouldn't be a problem.
---Ok, got it: Ashes come from burning.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by rms View PostThat said, why ufw is not enabled out of the box? I've read in Ubuntu documentation claims to the effect that because new installment of Ubuntu is not running any servers, firewall is not needed And pinging is allowed too.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by rms View PostYes, almost, and who knows how it is configured."A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreyGeek View PostMy wireless router ( TP-Link, TL-WR1043ND) )came with a manual, and also has extensive built in help. Doesn't yours? Every setting has extensive documentation in the right panel, displayed when the mouse hoovers over the setting control. That's why many wireless routers run Linux as their OS.Ok, got it: Ashes come from burning.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveRiley View Postit's fair to say a large portion of our membership is comprised of (partial) Windows exiles.
@Chris...extremely new and exotic hardware can be a little tricky but the Linux kernel will run pretty much on anything, since you have an nVidia based graphics card, that should not be a problem, nVidia is an ACTUAL driver supporter of Linux. I am envious of your new system, sounds like something I want to build only in my case, I would have a SIX SSD Raid 0, yes, I am that nuts, lol. Like the others said, keep Win-DOHs for games, but for secure and PRIVATE internet activities and way more functional multimedia, Linux is the way to go. Did I mention you don't have to mortgage your house to use Libre Office? :-D
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Pan-Galactic QuordlepleenSo Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
- Jul 2011
- 9625
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Send PM
Originally posted by rms View PostThat said, why ufw is not enabled out of the box? I've read in Ubuntu documentation claims to the effect that because new installment of Ubuntu is not running any servers, firewall is not needed And pinging is allowed too.
* A computer is listening on a socket for inbound connections
* You want to perform some kind of inspection of the inbound traffic before handing it to an application
A typical *buntu desktop has few, if any, listening sockets. For example, here's mine:
Code:steve@x1:~$ [B]sudo netstat --ip -lpe[/B] Active Internet connections (only servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State User Inode PID/Program name tcp 0 0 *:17500 *:* LISTEN steve 12717 1622/dropbox tcp 0 0 *:902 *:* LISTEN root 7675 1029/vmware-authdla udp 0 0 *:bootpc *:* root 23218 2673/dhclient udp 0 0 *:bootpc *:* root 12279 1781/dhclient udp 0 0 *:17500 *:* steve 12714 1622/dropbox raw 0 0 *:icmp *:* 7 root 7657 1003/vmnet-natd
If I weren't running DropBox or VMware, the only items in the list would be the two rows for dhclient, which is normal for any system configured to receive IP address assignment via DHCP.
Where something like UFW comes in handy is if you want to allow applications to listen for incoming traffic but restrict the source of that. You might, for example, run a web server, but want to permit only computers on the local LAN to access the server. You can also configure UFW to control outbound traffic, but I'm generally critical of such mechanisms because these are usually attempts to stop the malware on an already-infected computer from doing anything. Well, guess what: most malware knows how to get around these restrictions. If your computer has been attacked, it's no longer under your control.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveRiley View PostFirewalls are important when:
* A computer is listening on a socket for inbound connections
* You want to perform some kind of inspection of the inbound traffic before handing it to an application
A typical *buntu desktop has few, if any, listening sockets. For example, here's mine:
Code:steve@x1:~$ [B]sudo netstat --ip -lpe[/B] Active Internet connections (only servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State User Inode PID/Program name tcp 0 0 *:17500 *:* LISTEN steve 12717 1622/dropbox tcp 0 0 *:902 *:* LISTEN root 7675 1029/vmware-authdla udp 0 0 *:bootpc *:* root 23218 2673/dhclient udp 0 0 *:bootpc *:* root 12279 1781/dhclient udp 0 0 *:17500 *:* steve 12714 1622/dropbox raw 0 0 *:icmp *:* 7 root 7657 1003/vmnet-natd
If I weren't running DropBox or VMware, the only items in the list would be the two rows for dhclient, which is normal for any system configured to receive IP address assignment via DHCP.
Where something like UFW comes in handy is if you want to allow applications to listen for incoming traffic but restrict the source of that. You might, for example, run a web server, but want to permit only computers on the local LAN to access the server. You can also configure UFW to control outbound traffic, but I'm generally critical of such mechanisms because these are usually attempts to stop the malware on an already-infected computer from doing anything. Well, guess what: most malware knows how to get around these restrictions. If your computer has been attacked, it's no longer under your control.Ok, got it: Ashes come from burning.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Pan-Galactic QuordlepleenSo Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
- Jul 2011
- 9625
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Send PM
Originally posted by rms View PostI wonder what servers where exploited in Windows XP? Turning firewall on was one of the features brought by SP2. Just recalled Sasser.
The Windows firewall will block unsoliticited inbound traffic for all those listening ports; the potentially dangerous ones are all NetBIOS and RPC related. Not because these are necessarily bad protocols, but because they're unsuited for use on untrusted networks.
Indeed, Sasser slammed computers by exploiting a vulnerability in LSASS, exposed via SMB-over-TCP, which listens on port 445/tcp -- that's the one labeled "microsoft-ds" above. This port does need to be accessible by the LAN when a Windows computer is located in a Windows-based network, but not accessible to the larger Internet. This, among many others, became the impetus for our Service Pack 2 change that enabled the firewall by default.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
You can also go to https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (GRC's ShieldsUp!). It will try and scan what ports are open on your router and a bunch of other things, too. If the router is secured, then you don't need a local firewall. If it has open ports, say for an xbox or ps3, then a local firewall can be set up to block those open ports, etc. GRC is really setup for windows installations, but the information is valid for any installation.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by vw72 View PostYou can also go to https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (GRC's ShieldsUp!). It will try and scan what ports are open on your router and a bunch of other things, too. If the router is secured, then you don't need a local firewall. If it has open ports, say for an xbox or ps3, then a local firewall can be set up to block those open ports, etc. GRC is really setup for windows installations, but the information is valid for any installation.
@tek_heretik
lol Look at it as part of the answer to OP's question.
Thanks, SteveOk, got it: Ashes come from burning.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
Comment