Security-enhanced Linux
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: shn
On a traditional Linux system, permissions and access control to files and processes are controlled completely by users. root is all powerful, and programs inherit a user's rights, meaning that when a program is compromised, that user is also compromised. In cases of a program run as root, that means the attacker has access to the whole system.
In the SELinux method, access is provided by a security policy set by the administrator and enforced by the system. There is no "all powerful root user".
Debian and Gentoo have already adopted such a method some time ago. However if you do not use one of thoose distributions it is a good idea to consider implementing SELinux if you maintain a server, or if you are responsible for maintaining a secure Linux enviorment.
You may download (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/src-disclaim.html) SELinux from The Narional Security Agency (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html)
I only recommend this for novice Linux users.
shn
Posted by: LSA
:lol: I still say Windows 95 is more secure than Linux :lol:
Posted by: shn
Originally posted by LSA@21 February 2004 - 18:08
:lol: I still say Windows 95 is more secure than Linux :lol:
You are wrong. Windows 3.1 is more secure than any o.s. :lol: :lol: :P
Posted by: LSA
Originally posted by shn+21 February 2004 - 18:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn @ 21 February 2004 - 18:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-LSA@21 February 2004 - 18:08
:lol: I still say Windows 95 is more secure than Linux :lol:
You are wrong. Windows 3.1 is more secure than any o.s. :lol: :lol: :P [/b][/quote]
Uhh no I just 0wned a win 3.1 box a few days ago, DOS 3.3 was giving me shit big time though....Microsoft don't play around when it comes to security that's for sure!
I wouldn't even try to mess with a Windows box...
:lol: