security in ubuntu

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by The Red Moon, Jun 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    10,027
    Network status where?
    Mrk
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    There are many locations. Personally I think the most obvious is the network icon near the clock (notification area). But a desktop shortcut to "connect" has status and details as well. The Control Panel is another location. Start Menu (in Windows 8, Start Screen) is another location where you can find it. The Charms bar (in Windows 8 ) is another location.
     
  3. Kind of agreed, as Vista and 7 have fairly good default security. OTOH, everyone should at least disable autorun from external media, and tell Explorer to show the extensions for all files - those are not default configurations, but they are absolutely vital, especially the latter.
     
  4. guest

    guest Guest

    Disable autorun? Not needed anymore. See:
    - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/08/microsoft_windows_autorun_retirement/
    - http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/arc...into-the-security-advisory-967940-update.aspx
     
  5. BrandiCandi

    BrandiCandi Guest

    OMG YES!!!!!!!!!! Someone gets it! \o/
    :-* :-* :-*

    Well, to each his own. That's the beauty of security- you can do whatever you want. Before I cared about computers (i.e. > a year ago), I had Windows 7, XP & Vista, occasionally updated, running norton AV - slightly off of default but not by much. And I got root kits & viruses enough that I had to ditch the old computers every few years. Then the Windows 7 computer got owned by a targeted attack by a script kiddie. So yeah... I'm kinda biased against "default."
     
  6. guest

    guest Guest

    Ah goold old scary stories. Care to elaborate more? If you ignore warnings and deliberate want to install malware... don't blame the OS, it's your fault.
     
  7. BrandiCandi

    BrandiCandi Guest

    yes, it was totally my fault because I had no idea what I was doing, I didn't understand the risks or where the threats actually come from. Basically I didn't understand anything about my computer and that got me owned.
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    The warnings are very well written to make you understand and they help you with your decision. They are tested with focus groups etc. You don't need to be a computer expert, you just need to have eyes/average IQ and some normal patience to read.
     
  9. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    lol why? because Microsoft can't come up with a decent security model to protect their users from social engineering?
     
  10. guest

    guest Guest

    Because Microsoft needs to give some freedom. People just won't accept if Microsoft makes every decision to them. See the whole debate about the "killswitch" in W8 for reference.

    BTW, MSE 4 auto quarantines threats -without warnings.
     
  11. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I'm not calling for a killswitch I'm calling for a policy that doesn't rely either on the developer or the user to be a genius. It is absolutely mind blowing that people still blame the user.
     
  12. guest

    guest Guest

    So that's what we have now. You don't need to be a genius to read a warning. lol

    But as I said before there a number of improvements to that direction. To name a few: automatically sandboxed Metro apps, the killswitch, auto-quarantine feature of MSE real time protection (without warnings), "slight difficult to allow" warning of SmartScreen when it detects a threat (and SS applies to the whole system).
     
  13. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Baby steps I suppose.
     
  14. guest

    guest Guest

    What would be adult steps in your opinion? Remember, you can't compromise freedom too much or...
     
  15. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Freedom doesn't have to be compromised at all. It's entirely the opposite - a user should be able to download and run malware while still being protected.

    I could describe a system that would do this but it would take time and I'd rather just write the program myself.
     
  16. guest

    guest Guest

    If the malware does what a legit app does, in the end you can't restrict the malware without white lists / black lists or restricting what a legit app does as well. It's very difficult to not compromise freedom / compatibility.
     
  17. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Restricting what legit apps can do is a good thing as long as you allow them to do everything they need.
     
  18. guest

    guest Guest

    I agree, however you need to know that it is indeed a legit app in the first place. You need to trust in it to an extent.
     
  19. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Which is fine. Whitelisting, blacklisting, and heuristics are all entirely valid ways of determining trust.
     
  20. guest

    guest Guest

    True. And that's exactly what Microsoft is doing as well.
     
  21. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Not in the way I would.
     
  22. guest

    guest Guest

    And what makes your way better?
     
  23. Serapis

    Serapis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Posts:
    241
    Windows defaults are ok?

    Can anyone tell me why Windows has file/printer sharing and Netbios on by default?
     
  24. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    @SPP, a lot.

    @Serapis, it makes sense that it's on by default. What doesn't make sense is why my file/printer service is running as an unconfined admin process.
     
  25. CUPS runs as an unconfined admin process on most Linux distros. Ubuntu has an AppArmor profile for it, but many distros do not.

    (OTOH, I believe lpd on the BSDs runs as a limited user. Too bad lpd is such a royal pain to configure.)

    As for installing malware and still being safe - what you're asking for is something like Qubes, which is a good idea but until recently has been well beyond the capabilities of desktop hardware. You're asking for future tech to be here yesterday. No ordinary modern OS lets you be safe if you deliberately run a nasty.

    Also I should point out that I don't blame the user. I can't blame people for ignorance about an obscure, complicated subject; or for not having the time to really educate themselves about it. There is the issue of people not learning from obvious mistakes; but a lot of times their mistakes are sufficiently non-obvious that it's hard to wise up to them...

    I'm rambling here. My point is, user error is not necessarily the user's fault.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.