Home page logo

basics logo Security Basics mailing list archives

Re: Linux Distribution Recomendation
From: Alvin Oga <alvin.sec () Virtual Linux-Consulting com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:55:05 -0800 (PST)

hi ya peter

okay .. i'll jump.. :-)

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Peter Busser wrote:


I like Slackware myself ( http://www.slackware.com/ ).  It is as close to pure
Linux as you can get.  It's getting easier to manage also.  As far as security
goes, that depends largely on the admin but, Slackware requires far fewer
patches and upgrades than more well known varients because they don't rewrite
everything before releasing it.

Security does not depend on the admin alone.


The system can never be more
secure than the level of security that the underlying software is able to

no... that should be "never more secure than the weakest link" ...
        - the admin or the user ( 80% - 90% of the time )
        - the managers 
        - the corp computer usage policy or home computer usage policy
        - the patched server or unpatched due to laziness or not knowing
        - allowing anybody to connect w/ dhcp running
        - allowing anybody to connect w/ wireless running
        - allowing anybody to connect w/ telnet/ftp/pop3 ( cleartext pwd )
        - allowing insecure home network to connect(vpn) to the office
        - not having backups of *-your-* data
        - thinking that the firewall will sovle your problems 
                ( worst possible solution )
        - on and on and on

The security of a normal Linux or UNIX system is rather poor.

but still more secure and better than the other os that 90% of the
non-techies use

The security of a piece of software does not end with the implementation of
security features in this piece of software. Most software requires
configuration. And that goes for Slackware too. My experience with Slackware
has taught me that Slackware is particularly weak in this area. It needs a 
lot of handwork. Since handwork is done by humans, and humans tend to err now
and then, it will eventually result in a higher number of configuration

yes .. people make mistakes

slackware has no more extra tweeks to its os than other distro that is
tweeked to the hill for its "flavor"
        - redhat being the most tweeked and most hacked and probably due
        to most usage/penetration

        - one should normalize the number of successful hacks 
        vs the number of installations for a real answer of which is
        less susceptible to hacks

all distro uses the same sw
        - same kernel or tweekd ( broken )
        - same gcc/glibc
        - same bash
        - same sendmail
        - same dns
        - same apache
        - same ipchains/iptables
        - same mysql ....
        - same blah-blah ..

        ---> one distro is NOT more secure than another 

                -- it solely depends on the user's ability to know
                how to make it equally or better secure than the other

and i'd still pick slackware ... if its my choice

The vision behind Adamantix is to improve the overall security features of

sounds like what nsa linux and trustix used to claim ?? along with the
other secure linux ??

c ya

Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off 
any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less 
to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. 
Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field 
pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills 
of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization. 
Visit us at: 

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]