How To Argue That Open Source Software Is Secure? 674
Smidge207 writes "Lately there has been a huge push by Certified Microsoft Professionals and their companies to call (potential) clients and warn them of the dangers of open source. This week I received calls from four different customers saying that they were warned that they are dangerously insecure because they run open source operating systems or software, because 'anyone can read the code and hack you with ease.' Other colleagues in the area also have noticed that three local Microsoft Partners have been trying to strike fear in the minds of companies that respond, 'Yes, we use open source or Linux' when the sales call comes in. I know this is simply a sales tactic by these companies, but how do I fix the damage these tactics cause? I have several customers who now want more than my word about the security of systems that have worked for them flawlessly for 5-6 years, with minimal expense outside of upgrades and patching for security. Does anyone have a good plan or sources of reliable information that can be used to inform the customer?"
turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
How about telling them that Microsoft has taken code from open-source operating systems like BSD (true) and people have discovered bugs which had been fixed long ago in the open-source versions, and missed in the closed-source versions BECAUSE they were closed-source?
how to argue that closed source is secure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source is verifiable. Closed source is not.
Open source is verified, by many people, who discuss it in public. Closed source is not.
Point Out Their Records (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely! (Score:0, Insightful)
Absolutely! I provide the sources for everything that I install, along with links to where I got it from. Of course, the fact that they cannot ascertain the reliability of the source code for themselves is a *huge* opportunity for me: I offer certification and auditing services as well :)
NOT as part of a normal installation, of course.
When they complain, I simply point out that this is the same as what they'd get from Microsoft, except that getting access to their source code is a lot more expensive.
It's a beautiful thing: Not only do I not have to pay anything for the software, I get to charge them labor to install it for them (which is pure profit from my perspective). Then, if they want source code verification or auditing, well, that's just more money, too!
I love Open Source Software!
The proof is ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
The proof is in the pudding. Who gets hacked more ? Who suffers from worms and viruses constantly ? Who has to run anti-virus and anti-malware software ?
Re:Go to the bug logs for your software (Score:5, Insightful)
Show them how quickly discovered vulnerabilities are patched and how much discussion each bug receives. Ask the competitors to provide access to their discussion groups and bug logs. Compare. Contrast.
I'd put the emphasis on 'Compare'.
Print two lists. One containing all the critical vulnerabilities that have been reported in the last twelve months, along with numbers of exploited machines worlwide. The other will be a list of how many of these vulnerabilities have affected your supported machines.
If you've been doing your job well, the second list will be a blank page.
Show them where it works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they are aiming to battle on the concept of 'security' but rather the easily exploitable human characteristics of fear and susceptibility. This is, to a knowledgeable person, an obvious attempt at spreading rumor/mudslinging to create a widescale negative buzz among the weeble peoples.
I also heard Obama is a Muslim?
No Software is More (or Less) Secure Due to Source (Score:4, Insightful)
Though I am an OSS advocate, I do not fall prey to the "oss is better" or "closed source is better" simply as a security measure.
Bad (insecure) software can be written by any individual or vendor. It is how that individual vendor responds to exploits that is the key.
This is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hows this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmm Hmm.
And how many times have you heard about worms on Microsoft, the 'more secure' closed source OS?
And how many times have you heard about viruses getting through on the Linux systems I helped you set up?
Since Linux is the main system used for internet servers, you would think dangerous criminals would hit it first, right?
The reason you haven't heard of it lately is they did. Unix and Linux ironed all this stuff out 20 years ago - the last Unix worm that got famous was the Morris Worm. Huey Lewis and the News were big, there were still hair bands, and Republicans still had a reputation as being fiscally responsible.
Pug
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure "counter-spin" is the right tactic. Sure, you can offer some counter arguments, but personally I'd suggest the customer do an Internet search with something like "windows linux security". Microsoft has advertising muscle, editorial influence and sales teams... but despite this many people in-the-know choose open source specifically for security - an Internet search should make that clear. It will also demonstrate your integrity.
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
How about telling them that Microsoft has taken code from open-source operating systems like BSD (true) and people have discovered bugs which had been fixed long ago in the open-source versions, and missed in the closed-source versions BECAUSE they were closed-source?
What the argument really boils down to is this:
Open Source - You/I/We/The Community can audit the code and fix problems now
Closed Source - Wait for the vendor (MS) to release a patch (once a month) if the vendor thinks it is worth patching
Re:Think of it like an academic report (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think there's any need to exaggerate the security of open source software. One of my clients was recently burned due to Debian/Ubuntu's openSSL changes (utter disregard for security) that led to their servers being taken down, and a lot of hassle and explaining to be done. The sysadmins on the job weren't on top of their security updates, and Debian was not vetting their code properly.
Linux security relies on its system administrator. A good sysadmin with a bunch of linux boxes will be able to run a secure network, while negligent ones, such as those I've dealt with recently, can create security nightmares with linux. Same goes for Windows, really.
So, the most important thing you need to show your customers is that you are reliable, on top of your profession, and have the knowledge and confidence to stand behind your open source products. The weakest link in any network, be it Windows or Linux, is those that administer it.
Re:No Software is More (or Less) Secure Due to Sou (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree. Security is not a static rating but a process; part of that process is fixing found problems. Guess which is easier to fix: the stuff you've got the source to, or the stuff you have to wait 6 months before the vendor acknowledges as flawed.
Put in terms of ROI... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have several customers who now want more than my word about the security of systems that have worked for them flawlessly for 5-6 years, with minimal expense outside of upgrades and patching for security.
5-6 years? Go back and figure out the cost of purchasing the various windows software that you'd need (including all licenses, per-seat, etc.) over that time period. Don't forget the proprietary back up software and enterprise anti virus software. Then taking your hourly rates run the numbers for how often you would need to patch those systems (every week?) and toss in the time it would take you to *test* the roll out of those patches and then add more time for when it breaks everything despite your testing.
ROI goes a long way towards changing a customer's mind (which is why so many of them don't want to spend money on reliable backups :)
Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would point out is the monthly patch cycle you buy into with MS.
Any vendor worth using releases patches as vulnerabilities are discovered, keeping software safe. MS doesn't do this, and claims it as a feature.
The rest of the world releases patches as soon as someone with eyes sees a flaw. This is a clear advantage and negates all the FUD you are seeing.
Re:Antivirus (Score:3, Insightful)
# Many firewall/routers run linux. If linux is good enough to protect your windows machines from intrusion, then a logical person would conclude an open source operating system such as linux is more secure.
Many firewall/routers run a highly stripped down version of linux.
It does not follow that an OSS OS is more secure.
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if that's because suddenly companies are trying to save money by moving to open source software [slashdot.org]? And this is a pre-emptive response by the people who have the most to lose?
Understand the fear, and then address the concern. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Do not belittle or otherwise blow off the customer's fear. In fact, hear it, and agree that it's something to think about.
Them: "I'm worried about this Linux stuff. A guy was telling me that anyone could see the code, and just know how to hack it!"
You: "I can understand how that could be a concern. It is a little like having a map of the valuables in your house taped to your front door."
2. Explain why openness is helpful
Them: "Yeah, so what should we do?"
You: "To be honest, sir, the reason why we like that anyone can see the code is because that means anyone can fix those problems. And lots of people do, for the very same reason you are worried about it. They need something that's secure, and isn't going to surprise them."
3. Mention that serious people have a big stake in making this work.
You: "I should mention that a few companies have bet a lot of money on open source, and wouldn't be happy to see it easily broken. IBM, Novell, and Oracle, to name a few, have very large investments in Linux, and have donated many patches to make sure the code is secure. And for that matter, so has the NSA. They have actually extended the security quite a bit, with their Security Enhanced Linux."
4. Reassure them that people are thinking hard about this.
Them: "Yeah, but if anyone can see it..."
You: "...then you have to be extra careful. See, the strategy that Open Source follows, and everyone should, is to assume that everyone *can* see the code, so you better design it so that the real keys to the kingdom aren't in the code at all. You make sure the keys are completely in the hands of the owners of the system, so it doesn't matter if you can see how the lock works, you still don't have the keys."
5. Point out the obvious.
Them: "But what happens if someone tries to slip something in, and is really good at it?"
You: "Once in a while, someone tries. But when a thousand people might look at the files you are trying to sneak in, someone's going to notice. And then a hundred thousand geeks will make fun of you. In public, all over the internet."
Re:Antivirus (Score:2, Insightful)
It might be better to say that several large internet entities who employ the top people in tech obviously have a preference for Linux.
And then all you need to do is some large company name-dropping. Pointing out all the ways someone has already used Linux personally (without knowing it) would also be a help.
Here's one that comes to mind:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-275155.html [cnet.com]
Use an Analogy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:turn tables (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:turn tables (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but how do we know it is not true? Since it is closed source we can never be completely certain and just have to take someone's word for it....which is really the whole point of the argument for OS.
Because 1) Microsoft documents the heredity of their code well. They're not stupid. And B) the source code is widely available, both through legitimate channels like Microsoft's shared source programs and channels that are a bit shadier like bit torrent. Don't you think someone would have pointed anything embarrassing to Microsoft like this by now?
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft have a shocking history of sitting on a known vulnerability for years, but saying that releasing monthly instead of immediately is a problem is to spread your own FUD. They used to release as they patched, but that was even more problematic and so they responded to their customer's needs. In most cases, exploits don't appear in the wild until Microsoft release a patch for it.
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not invalidate the point that the bugs were fixed in the open source versions and not in the MS version.
Other points to make:
1) Open = open to independent security audits. I think the Open BSD audit covers other people's code, so there is at least one example of it happening.
2) MS code has been leaked [slashdot.org], and other code is deliberately shared [microsoft.com] with selected people. The bad guys probably have ways of getting hold of a lot of MS source code; whereas open source is available to you as well.
3) Track record. Not just Windows vs Linux, but IIS vs Apache etc.
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
An obvious one would be....
"So, why do my non-public facing workstations constantly get viruses; my public facing Windows machines get exploited; yet my non-public facing Linux machines have no security problems; and my public facing Linux machines have never been exploited. They're all patched in accordance to the distribution guidelines."
To appease the C-level folks, good documentation and quantification of the instances of security problems will make them happy.
"We spent 5,000 man hours last year cleaning up exploit problems on properly patched Windows machines, yet we spent 20 hours investigating potential security problems on the open source machines and found them to be simply user error. Per machine they equate to 50 hours per Windows machine, and 0.01 hours per open source machine.
In the last fiscal year, the TCO per machine on average, including cost of licenses, upgrade licenses, maintenance, and required security response for Windows machine was $800, while it was only $2.50 per open source machine. Hardware costs are not accounted into this, as the open source users are happy with the superior performance achieved versus the Microsoft based counterparts."
Those numbers are just yanked out of thin air. Fill them in with the appropriate numbers for your network.
If you can provide a brief yet complete statement like that, it won't matter what the sales minions say, you have factual data to back up your side. Scare tactics aren't as good as hard evidence. Well, except in court. Juries will believe anything if you wrap it up right.
Security and openness (Score:3, Insightful)
The strongest security is the one you get from everybody in the company being loyal and well educated about what they should and shouldn't do. Of course, you don't post your passwords on a sign outside, but that is about as much secresy as it is worth the effort to maintain, I think. Apart from that - if we know that Microsoft's security strategy uses "protocol X" and open source uses the same, what is the real difference? Only that in open source you can potentially inspect the implementation and verify that it doesn't contain inherent weaknesses that allow you to circumvent it. You can't do that with closed source, you have to trust the supplier; the big question then is: can you?
Open source works along the same lines as the open, scientific discourse that has brought us from pre-industrial society to the present day. If we had relied on secret research, we would still have lived in the mud; romantic, perhaps, but no computers. Or compare open societies to closed ones: are countries like Sweden, Germany and Switzerland less secure than, say, Burma? The only ones that feel more secure in Burma are the ones in power, but the country as a whole is less secure, as far as I can see.
buying the false argument (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't "argue" security--you test security. Offer your clients periodic penetration tests as a routine part of your service.
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
Well; if nobody's discussing it, then no. If they do discuss it you should definitely be ready to discuss their specific points with the people who have heard them. Preparing in advance so those points seem silly at the time they are told is also good.
It should be remembered that whilst this doesn't work properly, it was introduced partly at the demand of corporate customers. Some of them still like the idea and so it's maybe not the strongest point. What is worth discussing.
If you do want to discuss Microsoft's patch cycle, discuss it in the light of specific problems it causes. You should know of a specific "zero day" unpatched vulnerability which should obviously be patched and hasn't been.
Point at the finance industry (Score:3, Insightful)
The moral of the story is that complicated systems need to be transparent, regardless of their industry. Assume the worst of what you and other vested parties are unable to see. Not being able to see the problem is worse than the problem itself.
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
They claim it's a feature, because it's a feature their large corporate customers asked for. You aren't likely to get bonus points for going against that one.
Microsoft used to release patches as soon as they were discovered. They worked that way for decades. A hole was found, a fix was built, tested, and released. Patches would come out almost daily sometimes. The big companies didn't like that because besides the plethora of standard 3rd party apps that MS and others tested the patch against, they also all had tons of custom in-house software that each patch had to be tested against. When patches were coming out frequently (sometimes daily as I said), their testing teams would only get a start on one patch, when they'd have to begin the testing process again with another patch. Things stacked up in the queues and they blew a lot of money on large testing teams. They requesting less frequent, but scheduled patch releases from MS so that they could set a regular manageable cycle for testing. It's certainly a security risk, but the pointy-hairs and bean counters at the large corps thought it was a good risk for the dollar savings.
By attacking MS's patch cycle, you are attacking the pointy-hairs and bean counters at those companies you are trying convince open-source is good. Probably not the best approach.
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, there's actually a much better ways to do things. Windows 2000 had its NIST certification withdrawn due to insecurities (you don't have to say those were fixed and it was revalidated).
Whereas Linux is certified at around EAL5 - one of the highest Government ratings for commercial software and above the standards needed for classified work. Linux also has security code by the NSA. They can't endorse it, being the Government and all, but would the NSA spend money on software they can't use?
Even NASA and the Department of Energy have spent millions on Linux systems and putting some of their most essential work in that environment. If it's good enough to secure our nation against terror, doesn't it have to be better than the system you're patching monthly and still getting break-ins on?
Re:turn tables (Score:4, Insightful)
What the argument really boils down to is this:
Open Source - You/I/We/The Community can audit the code and fix problems now
Closed Source - Wait for the vendor (MS) to release a patch (once a month) if the vendor thinks it is worth patching
Careful with your phrasing! This can easily be twisted to:
Open Source - there are no experts, just you/I/we/the community hacking on the code; problems will be fixed only when someone is bothered enough, and even then you have no guarantee he knows what he's doing. No support for the fix either.
Closed Source - wait for the well-paid experts to release a thoroughly tested patch. If there are any problems, call support.
And when it comes to marketing, it doesn't matter if it's true or not; it only matters what the customer hears last, and what he is more likely to believe...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
They're getting scared now.
Re:turn tables (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, if you got mad skillz, you could potentially corrupt server memory by messing with the powergrid of the building. I plan to do this before I die.
------------
"Solar winds predicted this week, use only the highest quality of tinfoil's to wrap your disks in and protect your data!"
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait for any anyone who's going to patch to patch. Any remaining hosts are theoretically easier targets and as a result you have a more stable botnet (no initial surge & dieoff as people patch/repair).
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think it's just the reality of what happens. Maybe people don't write exploits until they've seen the issues that Microsoft are patching. A believe a lot issues are reported privately to Microsoft to give them time to investigate and patch. Then public disclosure comes. Then the exploits are implemented.
Re:Fight back (Score:4, Insightful)
"Don't discuss the attack, that's just playing into the hand they gave you.
What I would point out is the monthly patch cycle you buy into with MS. "
I think you are right, but I'd go even a step further. Just as it is read:
"I have several customers who now want more than my word about the security of systems that have worked for them flawlessly for 5-6 years"
Then I'd say: "Have your facts: all I can offer is my word and my 5-6 years track record, true. But once the Microsoft minion's word dust has settle what is it in reality *their* track record? Something like millions of malware-bloated systems? You are not buying words; you are buying facts."
Re:turn tables (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you personally gone through the millions of lines of code in the Linux kernel to make sure that there isn't a backdoor? No? Then you're just taking someones word for it.
I haven't gone through the designs of a 747 either, and I haven't checked that the plane I'm about to board matches those designs. Even if I did, I wouldn't know what I'm looking for.
Fortunatly I trust that many independent people have been through those designs, and I trust the the qualified pilot has checked the plane out. More importantly, I trust that if the pilot is wrong, he suffers the same consequences I do.
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, there's actually a much better ways to do things. Windows 2000 had its NIST certification withdrawn due to insecurities (you don't have to say those were fixed and it was revalidated).
Yea, and when an MS ISV points out it's been revalidated, your credibility just went to zero. Clients would naturally think "What else didn't he tell me?" or worse.
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd try and keep your case very simple.
Various government agencies use Linux, including Intelligence.
Open Source means that people who follow the law can see how something works under the hood, allowing more people to work to protect it. If someone is attempting to attack a program they could decompile it anyway so closed source provides very little protection.
Re:turn tables (Score:4, Insightful)
FWIW, I like Linux and FOSS, but I don't totally hate Microsoft or Windows as a rule.
True in theory, I guess, but the difference is that I -- or anyone I hire -- could audit the Linux kernel code at any time. The same simply isn't true for Windows. Even if it were possible to get access to the Windows kernel code, it sure wouldn't be free. With Windows, I have to take someone else's word for it. With FOSS, I have options to independently verify any such claims.
There is one HUGE thing people are overlooking (Score:5, Insightful)
You must stress that being able to _read_ the code is not the same as being able to _write to the released codebase_. This is an assumption I have encountered again and again and again.
The evil thing is, people don't ask about this, they assume it's fact and that's that.
"We" need to make sure this myth dies.
Re:turn tables (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no...
The legit shared source approaches come with strings attached, like any bugs you find must not be disclosed except to microsoft themselves...
And because they are a for-profit company, bugs which are discovered in private are usually kept quiet because disclosing them has a negative impact on business. They only disclose to the public bugs which were found by third parties because they have no other choice.
What do you think the ratio of issues being found by third parties reverse engineering the binaries, vs people with the source code? How many more vulnerabilities have been discovered in private and silently fixed?
MS like to make a big deal that the number of vulnerabilities reported in a given linux distro such as debian is greater than the number reported in a specific version of windows... But they don't point out that not only does debian distribute and support a much larger range of software some of which is also capable of running on windows, but all vulnerabilities discovered are dealt with in public.
When it comes to the shadier methods such as bittorrent, only blackhats will acquire source code that way, and these people will actively exploit vulnerabilities rather than disclosing them.
Re:Fight back (Score:4, Insightful)
Some OSS is secure, some aren't. Same for closed source.
To me the track record of the programmers involved will give you a better idea of whether a particular program is secure or not.
Analogy: someone who hasn't learnt how to write properly after 5 years of writing (or bothered to), is unlikely to write properly tomorrow. Whereas someone who keeps writing well is likely to still do so.
Re:That's a new low (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:turn tables (Score:3, Insightful)
While no one person has gone over the millions of lines of code, any given sub-section of the code had been gone over by dozens of people from different businesses and organizations. I'll take peer review over a one-man audit any day.
Re:Fight back (Score:1, Insightful)
you misunderstand, "openssl" is the magic phrase to instantly stop any argument about security involving debian.
Don't (Score:4, Insightful)
With the risk of being modded into obscurity and burning all my karma:
Simply don't venture into the trap that OS is inherently more secure than closed source. It is unfortunately easily refuted. PHP, WordPress, Typo3, Drupal are all open source projects with very challenged security track records.
Security and open source - despite popular belief - seems to be orthogonal concepts. It seems to have more to do with the QA/QC processes in place than with the actual development model.
IBM just released a report which shows that Vista and Windows Server are actually hit by fewer vulnerabilities than "Linux kernel", although suffering from more malware. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/iss/xforce/trendreports/xforce-2008-annual-report.pdf [ibm.com]
It actually show that through 2008 Linux kernel experienced 2x the vulnerabilities of Vista/Server 2008, Apple OS X was hit by 3x the vulnerabilities.
The IBM X-Force team went through the disclosed CVEs and attributed them to the operating systems. This way they didn't multi-count Linux because of multiple distributions, and also they didn't count vulnerabilities from the bundled apps from the distributions.
You may claim (as many surely will) that MS somehow "hides" vulnerabilities. However, that doesn't seem to be the case when you look at the information (the "bulletins") which is supplied with each patch.
Simply put, security seems to be an orthogonal issue. Open source does not seem to automatically or inherently guarantee fewer vulnerabilities or better in-depth protections. It doesn't seems to make it worse, though.
Claiming so will only make you vulnerable to counter-examples (of which there are many) and will allow the MS lackeys to paint you as an ideology-driven zealot.
Chunk it down. Point to the security track record of the products you recommend. Leave out the claim that they are more secure because they are OS, just claim that the products are produced by vendors that are accountable, dependable and transparent with proven security records.
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a load of fine suggestions in this thread which are well-constructed for logical minds, but I can't help but feel this tactic is best answered in kind: a gut-level fear-check. And so the best response isn't to sit down and try to explain the perils of security through obscurity, nor to try to sell additional security services, or to discuss patch cycles and the like, but instead to simply ask the client this: "When's the last time you heard on the evening news anything about a new virus, exploit, or vulnerability discovered in your Linux software? Now, how about Microsoft software?"
Overly simplistic? Absolutely. Sure to make them reconsider what the Microsoft vendors are trying to sell them on its supposed security? Definitely.
Re:Fight back (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft "discovers" patches, that kind of scares me.
Vulnerabilities are not patched when they are discovered. Some are, others sit waiting acknowledgement for a very long time before they are addressed.
In any case, the only true and reasonable metric is track record.
So first, one needs to explain that source code does not necessarily mean vulnerabilities are visible or present any more than knowing how a lock works makes them insecure. That is a pretty challenging hurdle to overcome. Frankly, I am not sure how I would address that in a way that would be universally understandable. But that is the beauty of FUD. Fear is easy to do, but not easy to undo. And since Microsoft is the accepted "religion" speaking against it is blasphemy.
But it is easy to point to track record of security and it might be helpful to select some specific cases of known vulnerabilities in Windows that went unpatched for a very long time. It is also easy to point to the many, widely-known disasters that have occurred with Windows over the years... disasters that occur regularly without the use of source code proving that availability of source code is somewhat irrelevant.
In the end, there will be arguments for both sides and neither will make clear sense to the non-technical. Request a 3rd party penetration test and security audit and be sure your ducks are in a row.
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I'm surprised people haven't gone with the most obvious method of arguing security...
Ask them the following questions...
Have you seen the Microsoft (XP, Vista, Office, etc...) source code?
Do you know anyone who has?
Do you know how quickly they find bugs and/or fix them?
You can ideally attack the Microsoft patch cycle because EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. YOU. PATCH. YOU. HAVE. TO. REBOOT... With Linux the only time you need to reboot the system is if you patch the kernel itself.
With Linux the patches are made almost instantly (certainly within an hour or so of the vulnerability being discovered). This lets the system administrators decide when to patch. If they wish to patch once a month like Microsoft does then that is perfectly fine. If they want to patch every day at 4am then that is perfectly fine too. YOU make your own policy, it is not dictated to you.
Re:turn tables (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, when I worked at Spider a few years later, there was still a lot of bitterness as apparently Microsoft did not so much as license the code, as just take it.
But a small company of around 50 bodies does not have the resources to take Microsoft to court, so what are you going to do about it? Microsoft would counter-sue for defamation or somesuch and you'd be bankrupt before you got chance to prove your original claim.
Re:Fight back (Score:1, Insightful)
The highest any flavor Linux has received in the US is an EAL4 per the official list today.
As one who managed a *nix OS through the CC Evaluation at the EAL5 level, there are years of time and millions of dollars of differences between the EAL 4 and 5 levels and the disciplines, documentation and tests to prove the differences between any level above 4 are extensive.
When I say millions, I'm talking about staff time on the part of the vendor, contract time on the part of the CC lab, special testing by the government and the cost of keeping the code base static during the evaluation and distribution of a product claimed to be Evaluated. It is a rare vendor who, once through the Evaluation, will make patches and improvements to the OS and then submit the new product for an Evaluation update. But that is what you have to do to keep an evolving product current in both its code base and its Evaluation status.
Too many vendors get one Evaluation and then use marketing FUD to fuzzy over the fact that the features you want were never evaluated or were evaluated but there have been changes since the evaluation which invalidate the status of the product version you want to use.
Evaluation status pertains to a specific product and code base so it is impossible to make a sweeping claim for Linux. You must have a specific distribution, revision and a means of securely receiving exactly the product that was received.
Hardly possible for a Windows based server OS (oh, the hardware is included in the evaluation so you can't add any non-evaluated products) and not typical for a Linux OS except in very controlled circumstances.
Re:I want to know the source of the myth (Score:3, Insightful)
All things considered it is just plain lazier to restart your server after applying patches
Fixed that for you.
Someone who is knowledgeable will be able to restart the appropriate services on a Linux box without going through a full reboot cycle. It's not hard to check the processes on a box to see if they're using the library which was updated.
To the best of my knowledge, it is impossible to do this in many cases with Windows, because you can't replace the file while it is in use (and forcibly unlocking the file to replace it has undefined behavior with any given program.)
I'd love to be proven wrong on that Microsoft bit, though. If there's a way to safely patch without having to restart, please let me know!
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
Some OSS is secure, some aren't. Same for closed source.
Yes, but TFA points out that Microsoft ISVs are trying to make a case that closed source is inherently MORE secure simply because the source is closed and nobody can "study it for the purpose of finding vulnerabilities" when in fact the experimental evidence (i.e. exploits in the wild and security incidents) overwhelming supports the conclusion that open source software is at the very least no worse than closed source software and is very often found to be more secure, even when other variables such as number and type of installations are controlled for, by almost any non-biased reckoning of the available real world data.
Attack Surface Area (Score:1, Insightful)
There is one area in security where MS Windows products fail compared to Linux and that is the exposed surface area for attacks.
Linux: One of the big advantages that Linux has over windows is that each distribution and most installations are so unique. Due to differences in defaults, and installation choices, there are huge differences in the configuration of one Linux server to the next. Most Linux server installations I have been exposed to do not install any type of GUI. Some are Red Hat, some SUSE, some Debian, some Ubuntu, some are custom purpose distributions such as IPCOP or SmoothWall firewalls. Some have SSH clients installed, some have iptables firewalls, some don't. If they have a web server, it might be apache, but it could also be lighthtpd. Databases that the application servers connect to could be MySQL or PostgreSQL or Oracle. If they have a mail server they may have sendmail or maybe postfix installed. They could be running 2.6.8 kernel, or 2.6.18, or 2.6.24, or 2.4.32 etc. There is no "typical" Linux installation.
Windows: On the other hand, Windows will almost always (nice feature in 2008 to install without it) have a GUI installed. If they are running an HTTP server it is most likely IIS. If you are running a mail server you can almost guarantee that it will be Exchange. Back end databases are almost always SQLServer or Oracle. You can also bet 50% or more are not patched up to date because the services provided by those servers are not in a cluster or behind a sprayer so the admins can't afford the downtime associated with the patch.
The main point is this. In the security realm, the larger the defined attack surface the more likely you are to be able to use one avenue to exploit and therefore compromise the server(s). Due to the wide differences in Linux distributions, and the fact the there is no "default" e-mail server, GUI, Window manager, scripting language, firewall settings, etc. that are common among all Linux installations. This means that a given attack or exploit will work on only a small percentage of Linux servers.
Compare that to Windows, where all servers essentially are configured identically within each release (Windows 2000, Windows 2003, ....). If they have a GUI installed it is the Windows GUI, it will have IE installed, it will have the Windows firewall, it will have .NET support installed, etc. This makes it much easier to exploit the server, because you have a large variety of services that are all identical running on every machine.
So it you exploit an IIS vulnerbility you can compromise the server running Windows. If you exploit an Apache vulnerability you may not be able to do anything on a Linux box because the Apache instance could by run in a chroot jail, SELinux or Bastille Linux configured.
The variety of products and distributions in Linux, while a little challenging from a SysAdmin standpoint at times, is actually an inadvertent security feature. Windows uniformity is helpful to Windows consultants and system admins, but makes for an easier to exploit product.
My two cents worth...
Re:Fight back (Score:3, Insightful)
I want software from people whose motivation is better software, that way we get things like Synaptic Package Manager and Update Manager at least in the case of Ubuntu. Synaptic works because it is people trying to work together for better software. Nothing like synaptic could ever work on Windows because there would be endless bickering over
I think it is as simple as this: Windows Update is designed for Microsoft, not the user. Any other parts of the system give that impression?
Real way to measurer Security (Score:2, Insightful)