2006 Operating System Vulnerability Summary
Публикувано на: 30.03.07, 10:45
Overview
Computer security is a precarious business both from a product development and administrative standpoint. Operating system vendors are forced to constantly patch their software to keep consumers protected from the latest digital threats. But which operating systems are the most secure? A recent report by Symantec hints that Windows currently presents fewer security holes than its commercial competitors.1 To that, a typical consultant would respond "well, that depends," as security auditors generally take such statements with a grain of salt. It depends on the configurations of the hosts, the breadth of the included binaries and the scope of what "commercial competitors" entails. Differing opinions on this interpretation lead to different conclusions. SecurityFocus, for instance, shows that various overall vulnerabilities surged in 2006 while ISS (Internet Security Systems) reports that operating system specific exploits declined.2,3
The summarized coverage of 2006 vulnerabilities by SANS showed the most prevalent attack vectors were not directly against the operating systems themselves.4 However, this article approaches the operating system as an entity in and of itself for analysis of only the vulnerabilities of core features. As such, vulnerability scans were conducted against 2006's flagship operating systems in various configurations to determine weakness from the moment of installation throughout the patching procedure. From Microsoft, testing included Windows XP, Server 2003 and Vista Ultimate. Examinations against Apple included Mac OS9, OSX Tiger and OSX Tiger server.5 Augmenting Apple's UNIX representation, security tests were also performed on FreeBSD 6.2 and Solaris 10. Rounding up the market share, Linux security testing included Fedora Core 6, Slackware 11, SuSE Enterprise 10 and Ubuntu 6.10. Before delving into the specifics of the vulnerabilities, it is helpful to understand the security scene of 2006.
...
Closing
While there are an enormous variety of operating systems to choose from, only four "core" lineages exist in the mainstream - Windows, OS X, Linux and UNIX. Each system carries its own baggage of vulnerabilities ranging from local exploits and user introduced weaknesses to remotely available attack vectors.
As far as "straight-out-of-box" conditions go, both Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X are ripe with remotely accessible vulnerabilities. Even before enabling the servers, Windows based machines contain numerous exploitable holes allowing attackers to not only access the system but also execute arbitrary code. Both OS X and Windows were susceptible to additional vulnerabilities after enabling the built-in services. Once patched, however, both companies support a product that is secure, at least from the outside. The UNIX and Linux variants present a much more robust exterior to the outside. Even when the pre-configured server binaries are enabled, each system generally maintained its integrity against remote attacks. Compared with the Microsoft and Apple products, however, UNIX and Linux systems tend to have a higher learning curve for acceptance as desktop platforms.
When it comes to business, most systems have the benefit of trained administrators and IT departments to properly patch and configure the operating systems and their corresponding services. Things are different with home computers. The esoteric nature of the UNIX and Linux systems tend to result in home users with an increased understanding of security concerns. An already "hardened" operating system therefore has the benefit of a knowledgeable user base. The more consumer oriented operating systems made by Microsoft and Apple are each hardened in their own right. As soon as users begin to arbitrarily enable remote services or fiddle with the default configurations, the systems quickly become open to intrusion. Without a diligence for applying the appropriate patches or enabling automatic updates, owners of Windows and OS X systems are the most susceptible to quick and thorough remote violations by hackers.94,95
Превод за обща култура ще се опитам да спретна по-късно, че сега нямам ресурс.
Computer security is a precarious business both from a product development and administrative standpoint. Operating system vendors are forced to constantly patch their software to keep consumers protected from the latest digital threats. But which operating systems are the most secure? A recent report by Symantec hints that Windows currently presents fewer security holes than its commercial competitors.1 To that, a typical consultant would respond "well, that depends," as security auditors generally take such statements with a grain of salt. It depends on the configurations of the hosts, the breadth of the included binaries and the scope of what "commercial competitors" entails. Differing opinions on this interpretation lead to different conclusions. SecurityFocus, for instance, shows that various overall vulnerabilities surged in 2006 while ISS (Internet Security Systems) reports that operating system specific exploits declined.2,3
The summarized coverage of 2006 vulnerabilities by SANS showed the most prevalent attack vectors were not directly against the operating systems themselves.4 However, this article approaches the operating system as an entity in and of itself for analysis of only the vulnerabilities of core features. As such, vulnerability scans were conducted against 2006's flagship operating systems in various configurations to determine weakness from the moment of installation throughout the patching procedure. From Microsoft, testing included Windows XP, Server 2003 and Vista Ultimate. Examinations against Apple included Mac OS9, OSX Tiger and OSX Tiger server.5 Augmenting Apple's UNIX representation, security tests were also performed on FreeBSD 6.2 and Solaris 10. Rounding up the market share, Linux security testing included Fedora Core 6, Slackware 11, SuSE Enterprise 10 and Ubuntu 6.10. Before delving into the specifics of the vulnerabilities, it is helpful to understand the security scene of 2006.
...
Closing
While there are an enormous variety of operating systems to choose from, only four "core" lineages exist in the mainstream - Windows, OS X, Linux and UNIX. Each system carries its own baggage of vulnerabilities ranging from local exploits and user introduced weaknesses to remotely available attack vectors.
As far as "straight-out-of-box" conditions go, both Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X are ripe with remotely accessible vulnerabilities. Even before enabling the servers, Windows based machines contain numerous exploitable holes allowing attackers to not only access the system but also execute arbitrary code. Both OS X and Windows were susceptible to additional vulnerabilities after enabling the built-in services. Once patched, however, both companies support a product that is secure, at least from the outside. The UNIX and Linux variants present a much more robust exterior to the outside. Even when the pre-configured server binaries are enabled, each system generally maintained its integrity against remote attacks. Compared with the Microsoft and Apple products, however, UNIX and Linux systems tend to have a higher learning curve for acceptance as desktop platforms.
When it comes to business, most systems have the benefit of trained administrators and IT departments to properly patch and configure the operating systems and their corresponding services. Things are different with home computers. The esoteric nature of the UNIX and Linux systems tend to result in home users with an increased understanding of security concerns. An already "hardened" operating system therefore has the benefit of a knowledgeable user base. The more consumer oriented operating systems made by Microsoft and Apple are each hardened in their own right. As soon as users begin to arbitrarily enable remote services or fiddle with the default configurations, the systems quickly become open to intrusion. Without a diligence for applying the appropriate patches or enabling automatic updates, owners of Windows and OS X systems are the most susceptible to quick and thorough remote violations by hackers.94,95
Превод за обща култура ще се опитам да спретна по-късно, че сега нямам ресурс.