On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:46:59AM -0000, Rob wrote:
> >From reading replies here this is what I understand tell me what is right or wrong or if I do not understand some thing.
>
>
>
> 1 Unix ,Linux and Mac has a protected Kernel not like windows and all admid are not really true admid in Unix ,Linux and Mac .
Hrrm, not quite right. Windows was designed, more or less, as a single
user system, before network cards. The problem with this, although it
has greatly improved over the years, is that many things still either
require or grant administrative access.
Linux in the early days, was more of a unix-y clone. Unix was designed
from the get-go to be a multi user system, only allowing administrative
access when necessary.
>
> 2 Linux and Mac is base of Unix .
>
No, quite incorrect. Linux was originally simply a kernel, that is,
more or less hardware drivers (over simplificiation, but close enough),
to enable people to use Unixlike stuff on less robust systems. Then,
mixed with a lot of software, a great deal of it from the Gnu people, it
became a Unix like system. The overused analogy is that of a car--Linux
itself, the kernel, is like the chassis and perhaps the engine, whereas
all the additional software is like the steering wheel, brakes, and the
like.
Apple, due to its immense financial resources, is actually an official
Unix, that is certified as allowed to use the Unix trademark. Its
kernel is, if I remember correctly, mach or darwin, and its userland,
that is, the stuff similar to the bash shell that you see in Linux, is
modified BSD. Both Linux and the current Apple can be said to have
derived from Unix, albeit indirectly--hrrm, inspired by Unix might be a
better term. :)
>
> 3.windows NT and windows 2000 was more secure OS almost has good has Unix at the time.
>
No, because again, you had the trouble that Windows was originally based
on a single user system, so many vulnerabilities still existed and
exist. They were more secure, however, than Windows 95, but the
browser, Internet Explorer, still had much too much access to the O/S.
They are all still more vulnerable to malware--in addition, as the vast
majority of computer users use Windows, the vast majority of malware
writers aim at Windows--there is some truth that one reason all the
malware is from Windows is because they are the biggest target, but they
do also seem to have more easily exploitable vulnerabilities than Linux,
Unix, and Mac. However, I don't know enough about system architecture
to be able to say more than the vast majority of malware is written for
windows. There are certainly takeovers, sometimes noticeable, of Linux
run websites.
> 4.windows NT /windows 2000/ windows XP make use of a account user of levels of permission for user by the admid
>
I'm not sure what you mean. They do allow for granular permissions,
and, on the Active Directory level at least, sometimes more easily and
more efficiently than Linux/Unix, which will require some googling and
studying to get the equivalent of some point and click stuff.
> 5.DOS , windows 2x ,windows 3x and windows 9x had no security at all has evey thing ran has one user with full admid mode.
>
Pretty much, as I remember. You needed a password though.
> 6.Even secure OS windows NT and windows 2000 also windows XP malware can still make it way out of the user account profile and infect system files .
>
> This cannot happen in Unix ,Linux and Mac it cannot leave the account profile .
>
Meh, cleverly written software might be able to do so, especially if it
could grab the password and run sudo, which will use a user account
password that may be quite weak.
Still, if you're going to questionable sites, you're often much better
off using Linux. I've chuckled, watching an error message pop up that
some exe couldn't be installed.
--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
Spike: Ahhhh, my head. I think I'm sobering up. It's horrible.
Ah... God... I wish I was dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment