The name of this forum

Posted by: Paragon

The name of this forum - 06/20/02 04:47 AM

Isn't it an oxymoron?
Posted by: Mornse

Re: The name of this forum - 06/20/02 03:14 PM

You laugh, but windows can be just as, if not more, secure than Linux. It all depends on the admin and the precautions he takes. A crappy admin can make either OS insecure, and a good one can make both perfectly secured.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/20/02 04:33 PM

I'm not so sure. I admit I don't have experience with *nix, but I've never been on a windows system I couldn't hack.
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: The name of this forum - 06/20/02 06:48 PM

Not sure? Well I completely agree with Mornse. Does that help? Or must we start another debate right here and now!
Posted by: unreal

Re: The name of this forum - 06/20/02 09:11 PM

I also agree with Mornse. And I have the sysadmin background to back that up.
Posted by: bor

Re: The name of this forum - 06/20/02 09:34 PM

Mornse is totally right. As long as the sysadmin keeps up on whats going on on his box, keeps permissions about right, gets security updates every once in awhile, and keeps tabs on his users, then it can be pretty secure. Of course we're talking about NT based, because there is no real security with 3.0-ME.

Linux can be very secure as well, because you can usually see exactly what a program that you run is going to do, the best webserver for linux/unix is MUCH more secure than IIS will ever be, and there are other reasons.

However if you want to talk about secure, it's ALL ABOUT OpenBSD. OpenBSD has got to be one of the most, if not THE mose secure OS there is. Basically, it comes with nothing, so there's nothing to exploit. Just install apache or whatever you're serving, and go.

My Slackware box is pretty secure, except for the fact that I've let users get a little out of control (which will change after this little hacking contest is over) but I only keep 3 ports on my box open...so that cuts down A LOT on what people can do.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/21/02 09:11 AM

Hmm. Let's see you guys make a Windows 95 box as secure as, say, Windows 2000 pro or something.

Oh, and by the way, I like debating! (Not arguing).
Posted by: Gremelin

Re: The name of this forum - 06/21/02 12:04 PM

router, 2 firewalls, no shares, bewm no one is getting in lol..
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: The name of this forum - 06/21/02 07:06 PM

oooooooooor, no routers, no firewalls, and no services running...
Posted by: unreal

Re: The name of this forum - 06/21/02 09:17 PM

Yep...see, Windows 95 doesn't have default shares such as NT/2000 does. A default install of Win 95 won't yield much, if anything.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/22/02 10:48 AM

2 firewalls? You mean one on the router?
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/24/02 06:12 AM

Oh, and that doesn't prevent local hacking. Against which virtually no W95 system can stand up against!
Posted by: SilentRage

Re: The name of this forum - 06/24/02 07:34 AM

To secure while off

Novell on top of W95 with booting from disk disabled or even a bios password if you're desperate.

To secure while idle
Screen savers are quite affective...

To secure while active
This security is determined by whatever software you may be running to disable stuff. Also, I've seen NT policy restrictions placed upon Win98, not on 95, but what's stopping ya if you can on 98?

And you said quote: "I've never been on a windows system I couldn't hack."

That must include Win2k and XP as well with all their security restrictions without ANY 3rd party software. I must say, you overestimate yourself.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/24/02 02:10 PM

Hmm. I admit it hasn't been as easy on 2k and I have little experience on XP (especially not a "secure" box). But I didn't say I have experience on every system.
But so far, I've always been able to find a way.
Posted by: Mornse

Re: The name of this forum - 06/24/02 07:27 PM

Guarenteed if I wasn't such a lazy ass I could secure up a win box that you couldn't get into paragon.
Posted by: bor

Re: The name of this forum - 06/24/02 10:00 PM

Well. I'll soon be setting up a permanent wargames server, so I suppose we'll be able to see.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/25/02 05:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mornse:
Guarenteed if I wasn't such a lazy ass I could secure up a win box that you couldn't get into paragon.
Even if I was sitting at the computer?
Posted by: Influx

Re: The name of this forum - 06/25/02 05:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bor:


However if you want to talk about secure, it's ALL ABOUT OpenBSD. OpenBSD has got to be one of the most, if not THE mose secure OS there is. Basically, it comes with nothing, so there's nothing to exploit. Just install apache or whatever you're serving, and go.

Same goes for FBSD, and FBSD has jailing, something OpenBSD doesn't know, so i'd say FBSD
Posted by: Mornse

Re: The name of this forum - 06/25/02 11:50 AM

Paragon, yes, even if you were sitting at the computer. It would take a bit of time to secure up of course, but I could make it so you couldn't get in.
Posted by: Paragon

Re: The name of this forum - 06/26/02 12:10 PM

I'm not so sure. In fact, I think you probablycouldn't make it so you couldn't get in. It always possible to get in. Even if you have to mangle the hardware!!! J/K.
Anyway, this thread was meant as a joke. I know windoze can be made pretty secure.