-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
9 Linux Myth Debunked
,----[ Quote ]
| When it comes to Linux there are 3 kinds of people, those who never heard of
| it, those who are afraid of it, and those who hate it and spread falsities
| about it. I don’t really care about the first, they probably aren’t really
| technologically literate anyways, as long as they have E-mail they are
| content. While the second group is the result of the actions of the third.
| Let’s hit two birds with one stone shall we?
|
| 1-Linux is More Secure Because it Has A Smaller User Base
|
| It is widely argued that Linux is more secure than Windows just because
| Windows is more popular, so hackers and virus coders tend to focus on the
| more popular platform. Actually, this is just one side of the story There are
| so many other things running for Linux security-wise that totally dispels
| this myth.
`----
http://hehe2.net/linux-general/9-linux-myth-debunked/
Very good post.
Linux Myth #2 - Linux is more difficult to install than Windows or OS X
,----[ Quote ]
| Before you are three discs - Leopard (OS X), Hardy Heron (Ubuntu 2008.4) and
| Windows XP each respectively in front of a whitebox desktop. For those not in
| the know, a “whitebox” computer is a clone, or generic computer; not a name
| brand model like Dell or HP. They are the systems you get a computer shows,
| have built by a local Mom and Pop shop, or build yourself. The task is to
| install each operating system onto each computer respectively. My point is to
| debunk the myth that Linux is harder to install than Windows or OS X. This is
| going to be a bit tough, because it presupposes a person who is going to
| perform the install already has some experience installing operating systems.
| Contrary to the first myth, that “Linux is not for the general user because
| it is too difficult for the general user to install;” we are now moving
| beyond the general user to a more technical person.
`----
http://www.thelinuxlink.net/myblog/?p=97
Recent:
Top 10 Linux FUD Patterns, Part 5
,----[ Quote ]
| FUDsters will argue that any security software for which the source code is
| freely available to the public is inherently not secure. This is based on the
| assumption that the source code will either reveal the secret functionality
| that makes the security software work or expose bugs in the security software
| itself that can be exploited as well.
|
| First, if someone cannot open their source because they are afraid it may
| reveal secret functionality, then it wasn’t properly designed from the start.
| The worst-possible example of this is hardcoding passwords in programs,
| especially if they are scripts stored in clear text. Good security schemes,
| such as encryption, rely directly on information the user provides, and often
| make use of one-way functions.
|
| Second, Open Source software is available for public scrutiny. If you cannot
| read and understand the code yourself, rest assured that there are many folks
| out there that can and do. Why? Because many businesses do actually use Open
| Source software and have everything to lose if they don’t test it out first.
| That being said, I consider many corporate “testimonials” sponsoring one OS
| or another based on security or other factors to be FUD, mainly because they
| often appear in paid advertisements and seldom reveal the details of tests
| performed to lead to such conclusions. Independent certification and research
| performed by government or other nonprofit entities are usually the most
| objective and reliable.
|
| Aside from learning the code, another way to test an application’s security
| strength or to see if it transmits private data is to watch (or “sniff”) the
| port on which it communicates using a network monitoring tool. Such data may
| be encrypted, but the (data) size and timing of requests made by the client
| software should be consistent and reasonable. This is a technical task, but a
| bit easier than learning how the code works. Just remember, sniffing outside
| of your own network may be considered illegal.
|
| Finally, there are many Linux opponents that would jump at the chance to
| expose real security weaknesses in Linux and its applications. These are
| often vendors of competing software and have both the money and channels to
| make themselves heard. When such a claim appears on the Web, look for
| specific details about the vulnerability. If there are none, it may be FUD.
| Also, check the software website to see if the vulnerability has been
| acknowledged or refuted as well as any status on its repair. Never take such
| claims at face value.
`----
http://linuxfud.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/top-10-linux-fud-patterns-part-5/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiqmqgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7mMACfUpfqECmPOu4XEU6uB3nCYGWF
2M4AnApaZkcs8baLfE0JW7ifgT2EWMKQ
=aBGy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
