3 ms·

In what way?

rbanffy 16y ago
Do you honestly believe market share is the only reason we don't see malware for other platforms? I can assure you the zillions of Linux servers you see sitting unattended for years on very fat pipes are really attractive targets. Yet, you don't hear about server botnets... There must be a reason for that.
- daeken 16y ago
  These "unattended" servers have far, far fewer security mechanisms in place than even XP SP2. If someone wanted to target them, they would. However, it's insanely easy to find Windows machines, which is all that's important for botnets. It's not hard at all to take over either an unpatched Linux machine or an unpatched Windows machine, but volume is all that counts here. You want hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of machines to send spam from. Market share is all that matters here, not technology at all.
  - alexandros 16y ago
    You would expect a badly architected system to have -more- security mechanisms, as it has a more complex surface to defend. You wouldn't expect it to be more secure though.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > servers have far, far fewer security mechanisms in place than even XP SP2 According to your reasoning, IE6 is the most secure browser because it has the most security patches. If you have fewer vulnerabilities to start with, you'll end up with fewer, simpler (and thus more reliable) security mechanisms. Windows has improved a lot. I suppose 2008r2 is reasonably secure and should be able to stay secure when exposed to the net, but the internal complexity of its security mechanisms is huge and, therefore, a lot can go wrong.
    - daeken 16y ago
      Except that mechanisms like DEP, ASLR, heap cookies, etc are being applied to all systems. Why? Because all of these OSes are vulnerable to the same classes of flaws. Since XP SP2, Windows has led the way in protecting code itself. Linux is largely on par these days, with OS X trailing way behind (they're playing catch-up now). As far as complexity, I strongly recommend you actually look at the protections in place. Those on Windows are significantly simpler (and more effective) than those on Linux, as of Windows Vista. The new heap, the simplified ASLR, etc all made things considerably simpler and harder to attack.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > all of these OSes are vulnerable to the same classes of flaws. They are. It's an unavoidable fact of life for the kind of computer we use (read x86 PC). But don't confuse being potentially vulnerable to a type of attack to actually being vulnerable to a specific attack of this type. In order to be vulnerable, you not only have to, say, allow a user-mode program to write on a page marked as executable (something I remember some high-end processors from the late 80's could prevent) but you actually must have a buffer overflow to go with it. Unless both conditions are met, you are not at risk. As far as actual complexity of the implementations are concerned, I can't evaluate Microsoft's, as the implementation is secret. I cannot, however, imagine how the Windows implementations can be simpler, for Windows is a much more complex operating system than either Linux or *BSDs. As alexandros pointed out, a larger surface means more to defend.

In what way?

Do you honestly believe market share is the only reason we don't see malware for other platforms? I can assure you the zillions of Linux servers you see sitting unattended for years on very fat pipes are really attractive targets. Yet, you don't hear about server botnets... There must be a reason for that.

daeken 16y ago
These "unattended" servers have far, far fewer security mechanisms in place than even XP SP2. If someone wanted to target them, they would. However, it's insanely easy to find Windows machines, which is all that's important for botnets. It's not hard at all to take over either an unpatched Linux machine or an unpatched Windows machine, but volume is all that counts here. You want hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of machines to send spam from. Market share is all that matters here, not technology at all.
- alexandros 16y ago
  You would expect a badly architected system to have -more- security mechanisms, as it has a more complex surface to defend. You wouldn't expect it to be more secure though.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > servers have far, far fewer security mechanisms in place than even XP SP2 According to your reasoning, IE6 is the most secure browser because it has the most security patches. If you have fewer vulnerabilities to start with, you'll end up with fewer, simpler (and thus more reliable) security mechanisms. Windows has improved a lot. I suppose 2008r2 is reasonably secure and should be able to stay secure when exposed to the net, but the internal complexity of its security mechanisms is huge and, therefore, a lot can go wrong.
  - daeken 16y ago
    Except that mechanisms like DEP, ASLR, heap cookies, etc are being applied to all systems. Why? Because all of these OSes are vulnerable to the same classes of flaws. Since XP SP2, Windows has led the way in protecting code itself. Linux is largely on par these days, with OS X trailing way behind (they're playing catch-up now). As far as complexity, I strongly recommend you actually look at the protections in place. Those on Windows are significantly simpler (and more effective) than those on Linux, as of Windows Vista. The new heap, the simplified ASLR, etc all made things considerably simpler and harder to attack.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > all of these OSes are vulnerable to the same classes of flaws. They are. It's an unavoidable fact of life for the kind of computer we use (read x86 PC). But don't confuse being potentially vulnerable to a type of attack to actually being vulnerable to a specific attack of this type. In order to be vulnerable, you not only have to, say, allow a user-mode program to write on a page marked as executable (something I remember some high-end processors from the late 80's could prevent) but you actually must have a buffer overflow to go with it. Unless both conditions are met, you are not at risk. As far as actual complexity of the implementations are concerned, I can't evaluate Microsoft's, as the implementation is secret. I cannot, however, imagine how the Windows implementations can be simpler, for Windows is a much more complex operating system than either Linux or *BSDs. As alexandros pointed out, a larger surface means more to defend.