Steve,
You sound quite confused. Re-read your message to this list below.
Linux is a kernel, it's used in red hat, debian, and every other 'linux'
distro.
I am using kernel 2.2.17 and really like it. It's as secure as I make
it on my box. The kernel ISN'T the security risk; How you handle the
kernel IS. I could also be running the 2.0.36!
If you put red hat 7.0 on a public server without repairing the released
version, then you made a rather sad mistake. I ran it and enjoyed the
abundance of 'silly' incorporated in that particular release! Of course
it only ran on my bench box for demo purposes.
I think your "guy" recommending Debian is probably the FIRST step in
the right direction.
You might also consider a 'sysadmin' to keep your system running safely
and 'securely'.
Best of luck to you,
regards
On Monday 19 February 2001 15:11, Steve Rudd wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am frustrated with the linux 2.2 kernel. I have had two hacks in 3 months
> and I am going broke rebuilding my server.
>
> I went out and bought Redhat 7, and got hacked 6 weeks later.
>
> I have been placed in contact with a guy who wants me to use Debian. But if
> it based upon the same kernel as redhat, how is it going to be more secure?
> I checked and found that
>
> from (http://www.securityfocus.com/)
> Security risks for years: 1997-2000 respectively:
> Debian 3, 2, 32, 45, 12
> RedHat 6, 10, 49, 85, 20
>
> So Debian is about twice as good as redhat, but that is not real
> reassuring.
>
> I am considering joining the debian family, but am a bit concerned about
> security.
>
> Just how much more secure is Debian than redhat?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Rudd
--
Jaye Inabnit, ARS ke6sls e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
707-442-6579 h/m 707-268-4074
http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls ICQ# 12741145
This mail composed with kmail on kde on X on linux warped by debian
If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid.
