Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

London Stock Exchange got hacked as soon as it switched to Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • London Stock Exchange got hacked as soon as it switched to Linux

    Happened a few days ago. The London Stock Exchange seems to have been hacked when it switched to Linux:

    http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...-linux-switch/

    Now is this good publicity or not Also noteworthy is the absence of coverage on LWN.net and the like

  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by renkin View Post
    Is it me or is the article written in a very confusing way? I thought their system was attacked after switching to linux, which is what the title implies.

    But the attack happened DURING the switch, so their Linux solution wasn't up and running yet. and it was Microsoft's .NET architecture that was attacked (does that mean the system was running Windows at the time?) .. A lot of things in the article seem too vague
    Actually, the article linked also says 'during Linux switch', however the starter of this thread decided to change it to 'London Stock Exchange got hacked as soon as it switched to Linux', for what reason is anyone's guess but it's obviously false. Add to that, the article only speculates that there even was an attack, so can you say FUD?

    Facts are, under much fanfare Microsoft announced that the London stock exchange was switching to Microsoft servers and .NET. After a series of problems culminating in the system collapsing and stopping trade for almost an entire day, a switch to Linux was decided (which is what New York stock exchange is running for example).

    Leave a comment:


  • renkin
    replied
    Is it me or is the article written in a very confusing way? I thought their system was attacked after switching to linux, which is what the title implies.

    But the attack happened DURING the switch, so their Linux solution wasn't up and running yet. and it was Microsoft's .NET architecture that was attacked (does that mean the system was running Windows at the time?) .. A lot of things in the article seem too vague

    Leave a comment:


  • Thatguy
    replied
    Originally posted by cynical View Post
    Ah, so that's how you came to that conclusion.
    Its the truth. It can be, but by default it is not. It takes alot of diligence and time to make it so. I have machines that are up at 40,000 hours of continous up time, in fact I needto start replacing dirves, with no virus's etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynical
    replied
    Windows can be JUST AS SECURE AS LINUX, keep repeating that till it sinks in.
    Ah, so that's how you came to that conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thatguy
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    This is exactly what I've meant. Not haste for pr0n, but the connection. =) =)
    A large titanium tube made of >linux-based< hardware firewalls protecting several proprietary blob heaps on the other end.
    How does it going to protect against threats on 5,6,7 OSI levels? You trust your antivirus? =) I think it trusts you back =)
    actually our routers are hard coded " old school" assembly programmed devices. They require a serial capable to configure. These are not consumer hardware parts. They also are very obscure which helps with security. Its hard to hit a mall target.

    I don't run any anti virus software at all.


    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    I congratulate you on reinventing the wheel (that should be invented by the company you paid your money to) and enjoying stripped down experience. And trusting your antivirus =)
    We don't use a anti virus, I strip out uneeded features. Granted I did pay for them at some point but mostly its about disabling back door acess.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    I do not like the word "generally". It makes us look like we come from ancient greece.
    1. Linux has more than enough systems to target. This is straight BS. 90% of internet is linux/bsd and still thriving. ... And please read (2) underneath and come here again to target anyone - you are welcome. =)
    thats a flat lie. Linux is on about 52% of the servers out there, unix is on around 20% and windows server is running another 20%. If you include VM's windows and linux cohabitate 75% of the market space eqaully.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    2. I bet windows AV companies are much much more focused on security. In fact they are so focused that they are glued to it. You pay them money for it, so they really should. Or they will loose their jobs without upcoming viruses etc. Grown from the lab next door. Instead, when Sourceforge was hacked recently (maybe them involved ), it was detected, stopped, analysed and fortified immediately. In fact crackers helped SF to advance security. You see the difference between windows and linux is that 1st one is theoretic, whilst 2nd one gets hacked(and improved - inplace) on constant basis. And because its opensource it greatly adds to it - here you see the true reason for linux(and foss in general) security.
    Windows can be JUST AS SECURE AS LINUX, keep repeating that till it sinks in. The trouble starts with activex controls, and Ie vulenerabilitys " which firefox shares with IE" and to many advanced admin remote management features.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    3. Please name missing features within stock XP vs stock Linux - I would be very happy to listen. =)
    where do you want to start ? thats a long long list and we are discussing built in features not third party add on's.

    I think alot of the average linux usebase doesn't really get it.windows is a very easy system to deploy and manage remotely. its the same thing that cuases its weakness at the same time.


    If this is a feature, I'm speachless
    the home versions get pretty much all of the same network acess and remote manageent features as the regular office versions of windows.

    Multiuser is wasted on most users on desktops. all of the cruft that goes with it is essentially the bulk of the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    I have a VM that hosts my net acess on my primary server. All of our in house machines are VPN'd only to each other and the network is firewalled off really hard.

    Its a rather elborate setup but its been up for about 6 years and we haven't had a machine get infected yet. We surfe porn at work with wild abandon.
    This is exactly what I've meant. Not haste for pr0n, but the connection. =) =)
    A large titanium tube made of >linux-based< hardware firewalls protecting several proprietary blob heaps on the other end.
    How does it going to protect against threats on 5,6,7 OSI levels? You trust your antivirus? =) I think it trusts you back =)

    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Not to mention my massively stripped down low feature custom tweaked version of xp.
    I congratulate you on reinventing the wheel (that should be invented by the company you paid your money to) and enjoying stripped down experience. And trusting your antivirus =)


    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    Linux is by defulat generally more secure for a couple of reasons.

    1. not enough systems to target.
    2. linux developers are focused on security
    3. lower feature count.
    I do not like the word "generally". It makes us look like we come from ancient greece.
    1. Linux has more than enough systems to target. This is straight BS. 90% of internet is linux/bsd and still thriving. ... And please read (2) underneath and come here again to target anyone - you are welcome. =)
    2. I bet windows AV companies are much much more focused on security. In fact they are so focused that they are glued to it. You pay them money for it, so they really should. Or they will loose their jobs without upcoming viruses etc. Grown from the lab next door. Instead, when Sourceforge was hacked recently (maybe them involved ), it was detected, stopped, analysed and fortified immediately. In fact crackers helped SF to advance security. You see the difference between windows and linux is that 1st one is theoretic, whilst 2nd one gets hacked(and improved - inplace) on constant basis. And because its opensource it greatly adds to it - here you see the true reason for linux(and foss in general) security.
    3. Please name missing features within stock XP vs stock Linux - I would be very happy to listen. =)


    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    as for a home desktop user. Windows has WAY more features then it needs and exposes to many "admin" privlige back doors out to the network.
    If this is a feature, I'm speachless

    Leave a comment:


  • Thatguy
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    So "your" windows is not looking direction internet directly, but via a long titanium tube,- with other end wide open? I dunno, they infected nuclear powerplant and it went just fine.
    I have a VM that hosts my net acess on my primary server. All of our in house machines are VPN'd only to each other and the network is firewalled off really hard.

    Its a rather elborate setup but its been up for about 6 years and we haven't had a machine get infected yet. We surfe porn at work with wild abandon. My setup is WAY beyond what any ordinary user would ever attempt. Not to mention my massively stripped down low feature custom tweaked version of xp.


    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    If you put it in the metal box, cover with cement and drop in the ocean, yes. =) But linux is secure mostly due to open source nature(and people checking the sources), people hacking security and somebody with enough money to buy them coffee. IMHO.

    Linux is by defulat generally more secure for a couple of reasons.

    1. not enough systems to target.
    2. linux developers are focused on security
    3. lower feature count.

    thats why. if windows took the same approach alot of enterprise deployments wouldn't be able to function and change as easily. it really depends on the needs of the system admin and the functionality the company needs fro the system.

    as for a home desktop user. Windows has WAY more features then it needs and exposes to many "admin" privlige back doors out to the network.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thatguy
    replied
    Originally posted by ?John? View Post
    But what good is all that, considering how poorly it works? I had to deal with yet another SMB malfunction just yesterday morning and as far as I can tell, all sorts of random failures are definitely nothing unusual to begin with. On the contrary - all of this mess is so common, that our college administrators refuse to even consider using SMB for anything important.
    I figure that all this erratic behavior must be caused by something really horrible going on under the hood and since that can never be fixed, because it would cause massive breakage of backwards compatibility, I can pretty much only laugh at any claims of how secure one can supposedly make it.
    Not to mention that publicly documented exploitable bugs, discovered by someone randomly poking around, are most likely just the tip of the iceberg and all that stands between the attacker and so called "security" mechanisms of any proprietary system may well be just the code's obscurity.
    As far as API design is concerned, I believe it's much better to start with a minimal set of functionality that can cover every conceivable application at the time, extend it only when there's no other way, keep cleaning it up and completely rewrite it when necessary, rather than trying to gradually deprecate parts of largely superfluous set of calls designed for convenience, which can obviously get very messy, because people are lazy and force you to keep old crud around indefinitely. That's where I believe libre projects got it right and why they're inherently more secure.

    Its not the old crud, its the nature of the way client/server setup is between 2 windows machines.

    Look at remote desktop and remote registry. Great tools, but huge huge problems in terms of security.

    Libre projects are more inherently secure beucase they aren't as feature rich.

    Now wether thats a good thing or a bad thing depends on what you need out of your system.

    Leave a comment:


  • ?John?
    replied
    Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
    MS product have very rich network filesharing, service sharing etc
    But what good is all that, considering how poorly it works? I had to deal with yet another SMB malfunction just yesterday morning and as far as I can tell, all sorts of random failures are definitely nothing unusual to begin with. On the contrary - all of this mess is so common, that our college administrators refuse to even consider using SMB for anything important.
    I figure that all this erratic behavior must be caused by something really horrible going on under the hood and since that can never be fixed, because it would cause massive breakage of backwards compatibility, I can pretty much only laugh at any claims of how secure one can supposedly make it.
    Not to mention that publicly documented exploitable bugs, discovered by someone randomly poking around, are most likely just the tip of the iceberg and all that stands between the attacker and so called "security" mechanisms of any proprietary system may well be just the code's obscurity.
    As far as API design is concerned, I believe it's much better to start with a minimal set of functionality that can cover every conceivable application at the time, extend it only when there's no other way, keep cleaning it up and completely rewrite it when necessary, rather than trying to gradually deprecate parts of largely superfluous set of calls designed for convenience, which can obviously get very messy, because people are lazy and force you to keep old crud around indefinitely. That's where I believe libre projects got it right and why they're inherently more secure.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X