Richard Urban wrote:
> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
No one ever said it was. Anyone who thinks ANY system is hack proof is
living in a dream world. Unix and Linux have far fewer wholes to be
exploited by Windows and last I checked, are not exactly the easiest to
hack into.
> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
Maybe you should actually read the article.
that the source of the troubles might have been a Chinese
IP address trying to log onto the servers by brute force
"for a long time now it seems," said a participant
The attacker got in via brute force? If that's so then this is nothing
more than a case of an admin neglecting security. Something as simple as
checking logs from time to time could of prevented that. Most Linux
systems I've used have something called LogWatch that compiles a report
of various logs (that can be customized) for the root admin to see every
morning their inbox.
the servers were all found to be out of date, stuffed with
Web software, and missing security patches-at least in the
instances where it was easy to determine what version
they're running.
In other words these machines were poorly kept and possibly running poor
choices of software or software that was poorly configured, probably by
inexperienced personal.
It seems that this isn't a case of Linux being vulnerable, but what
happens if admins of live servers don't do their job.
In any system theres no replacement for good administrators. Linux is
far more solid and robust than Windows could ever hope to be (if Vista
is any indication.)
-saran
