So are we done pretending that Linux is the most secure operating system now? Because we've had these kinds of root exploits for as long as there's been Linux servers. And I've been the one that had to patch dozens of systems every damn time, as far back as 1998.
So are we done pretending that Linux is the most secure operating system now...
Isaiah Clark
Other urls found in this thread:
cve.mitre.org
support.microsoft.com
twitter.com
Josiah Murphy
What would you suggest instead?
Windows?
Bentley Rivera
>implying Windows is any more secure
cve.mitre.org
Aaron Ross
BSD, perhaps, but Windows isn't bad these days.
Let's put it this way. I patch the Windows servers for serious problems a lot less often. I also patch the other application software less often.
Ryan Sanders
>I patch the Windows servers for serious problems a lot less often.
>less updates = good thing
Are you literally retarded?
Grayson Gomez
Dude there's no such thing as a bulletproof OS. So the least problems it the best.
It's like politics. You pick the shiniest turd.
Thomas Ramirez
No one cares about your opinion, or you experience. You are literally nobody.
sage
Aaron Thomas
>gets burrhurt
>tries to use the defeatist tactic
Go to bed, kid.
Aiden Bennett
DirtyCOW was the tipping point for my IT department, the last of the servers are going to Windows.
Xavier Jones
not an argument
see
sage
Kayden Allen
>least problems
>Windows
pick one and only one
Jordan Flores
quit making shit up. Has not even been found in the wild, and requires physical access. Already patched. You don't work in the industry, you know nothing.
sage
Juan Powell
Ok
Charles Sanchez
>So are we done pretending that Linux is the most secure operating system now
yes, we established that Linux is the most secure operating system now
Carter Rogers
>Pointing to a single patched exploit is enough to prove that an operating system is the most/least secure.
Do you not understand how comparisons work?
Adam Lewis
>requires physical access
It's fucking nothing, fuck outta here Pajeet.
Hunter Ramirez
>DirtyCOW
>requires physical access
What? No.
Thomas Carter
Tried exploit code on Slackware 14.2.
Needs mmap which needs ghc as adependency.
Slackware does not ship with these and compiling took a long time.(ghc requires 4.3 gb).
Code wouldnt work because it calls on madvise and 14.2 has madvise2.
Didnt work.
Anthony Powell
>same here
Still some faggot try to use this meme CVE as a FUD against linux. Maybe this is the 10th times i see this crap in catalog.
Aiden Lee
Yeah, and all for a local exploit.
This is all they have got on us.
Anyways, getting back to not giving a shit.
Jonathan Fisher
>Applies kernel update
>Three second reboot
>First Linux kernel vulnerability in ages fixed
>Apply updates to Windows server
>Takes ninety minutes
>Seven minutes after reboot, fully functional again
>Oh look, those updates unlocked more updates that were dependant on them.
>Eventually secured until next month's updates
Luis Gutierrez
windows doesn't patch anything but crytical bugs / blue screen etc. i.e. Really obvious ones
>thinks you're more secure
kek
Luke White
Hey, it's patched now, dingus. Linux is perfectly safe.
Ian Brooks
Hopefully that windows server belongs to somebody else and not (you).
Tyler Peterson
I have around 45 Windows servers that behave exactly as described for Windows 2008 and Windows 2012.
The only saving grace is that I no longer have to update my Windows 2003 servers.
Landon James
I dont even think Slackware 14.2 was vulnerable in the first place.
I generated a modular kernel from the huge kernel which isnt the same as the standard linux kernel though.
Oliver Johnson
Actually this is where Windows is horrible. Look at this shit:
support.microsoft.com
Something like half of these are "addresses random BSOD" and "addresses random data corruption". Serious shit, which for some fucking reason is mostly missing from Windows Update.
Yes, you too can download 300+ updates on a fresh install so that you can fix issues like "removes a font", but wait until your business critical server starts blowing shit up and hey, here's a massive list of updates to go and find yourself.
John Howard
>I've been the one that had to patch dozens of systems every damn time, as far back as 1998.
You sir are a liar.
Nolan Evans
Proportionally that's great
Wyatt Gray
are any of these memory exploits even applicable to hardened kernels (protecting memory/execution) and sandboxed processes?
Levi Price
>The Windows and OSX kernels are secure
>Immediately deploying security patches and spreading awareness is a bad thing
Chase Howard
They're not applicable to huge kernels.
So far from my testing.
Julian Kelly
>most secure
Its a childish mind that thinks in absolutes and hyperbola.
Security is relative to threat. If there were an absolutely secure OS, only the system would be in command. Making it unusable by people.