FWIW, I have had a 486 16MB firewall running Coyote Linux 24/7 since July '00. The 4 machines behind it run Linux (variously, debian, mandrake) and M$ Windoze The only hit has been when I made a modem connection with M$ Outlook on that machine and the hit was confined to that machine.
Take a look at www.coyotelinux.com. -Bill --- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FYI, your subject is WRONG. Linux is trademarked by > Linus Torvalds, an > employee of Transmeta. Calling RedHat "linux" is no > more accurate than > calling Debian "linux". To be more exact, it is Red > Hat Linux v 7.0 AND > Debian GNU/Linux v 2.2r2. I forsee only trouble if > you continue to refer > to Red Hat 7 as Linux 7 often on Debian > mailinglists... > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, 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. > > The 2.2 kernel isn't the issue, your configuration > is. Crackers don't > often break in via insecurities in the kernel, they > usually use a service > or other program that they can get to remotely > > >I went out and bought Redhat 7, and got hacked 6 > weeks later. > > Not surprising: .0 releases of RH are always risky. > > >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 > > A few things that RH does insecurely, Debian does a > bit more securely. > But that security comes at a cost of some of the > "ease of use" features in > Red Hat. > > >from (http://www.securityfocus.com/) > >Security risks for years: 1997-2000 respectively: > >Debian 3, 2, 32, 45, 12 > >RedHat 6, 10, 49, 85, 20 > > There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and > statistics. > > >So Debian is about twice as good as redhat, but > that is not real reassuring. > > What do you want, OpenBSD-type security? Got a > couple of four years to do > a code audit? > > >I am considering joining the debian family, but am > a bit concerned about > >security. > > Right now, it sounds like you need to solve the > PEBCAK issue first. > Security is something that happens in the Sysadmin's > mind first: once it's > there, the most insecure OS in the world will become > secure. Turn off all > unneded services; update early and often; if > something is widely > considered buggy, consider alternatives; try > breaking in [to your own > computer, natch] yourself a couple of times--if you > can do it, so can > others; go on a SUID killing spree; countless > things... > > >Just how much more secure is Debian than redhat? > > Slightly. Debian will probably give you the space > you need to learn > security before you get killed, while Red Hat > compresses the learning > curve, but leaves some obvious holes. > > >Thanks! > > > >Steve Rudd > > > > > > > > -- > I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature > enough to make my own > decisions. > > Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
