Prev: Can we please stop winding Rowland up?
Next: Apple RAM pricing
From: chris on 29 Mar 2010 11:20
On 29/03/10 15:25, Chris Ridd wrote:
> On 2010-03-29 13:45:30 +0100, chris said:
>
>> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
>> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras
>> added.
>>
>> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
>> typically very safe.
>
> Signing is irrelevant, it just proves that it came from Ubuntu.

It's not irrelevant. Which is safer; downloading stuff from random
websites or from a 'known' repository?

> If you install unnecessary things on a public facing server you widen
> the "attack surface". Basically more stuff's there with more bugs and it
> is thus more attackable.

We're talking about a home media server here. Worrying about attack
'surfaces' is like worrying about being struck by lightning when going
for a walk to the corner shop.

Seeing as Tim is now using Windows Home Server, he clearly isn't worried
about attack surfaces...
From: T i m on 29 Mar 2010 12:13
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:20:28 +0100, chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:


>> If you install unnecessary things on a public facing server you widen
>> the "attack surface". Basically more stuff's there with more bugs and it
>> is thus more attackable.
>
>We're talking about a home media server here. Worrying about attack
>'surfaces' is like worrying about being struck by lightning when going
>for a walk to the corner shop.

But the point was (as confirmed by the others) to add (or have) the
extra stuff on a server (the same as the desktop) was just adding risk
for risk sake (however low the risk).
>
>Seeing as Tim is now using Windows Home Server, he clearly isn't worried
>about attack surfaces...

No, I'm not. Well I am in that I don't use the WHS as a workstation
and do run AV on there etc etc but the bottom line is I wanted 'a
solution' and that was about the only one I could get to work easily
on hardware I could afford and build myself. I have a C2D Mini doing
little atm so could have used that but it was better kept / sold as-is
than butchered to take bigger drives (and I didn't want external,
currently 3 x 500G in the WHS).

It backs up all the client machines, is 'seen' by my (new to me) Xbox
360 and plays video and music with no issues (unlike XBMC on the
Ubuntu laptop) it sleeps and wakes when it should and I didn't need to
read a manual to install any of it.

Oh, and it's quieter than this Mini! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I've still got some suitable hardware left over and might try
Ubuntu server again. However, I have a nice DTV card so could also
turn said hardware into a basic media player but doubt I would be able
to get as much working as I would under Windows (don't know OSX enough
to want to hack it on there either).



From: Ben Shimmin on 29 Mar 2010 15:18
chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com>:
> On 29/03/10 15:25, Chris Ridd wrote:
>> On 2010-03-29 13:45:30 +0100, chris said:
>>> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
>>> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras
>>> added.
>>>
>>> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
>>> typically very safe.
>>
>> Signing is irrelevant, it just proves that it came from Ubuntu.
>
> It's not irrelevant. Which is safer; downloading stuff from random
> websites or from a 'known' repository?

<URL:http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571>

b. --just sayin'

--
<bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy
shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors,
secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert
From: Woody on 29 Mar 2010 15:59
Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote:

> chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com>:
> > On 29/03/10 15:25, Chris Ridd wrote:
> >> On 2010-03-29 13:45:30 +0100, chris said:
> >>> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
> >>> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras
> >>> added.
> >>>
> >>> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
> >>> typically very safe.
> >>
> >> Signing is irrelevant, it just proves that it came from Ubuntu.
> >
> > It's not irrelevant. Which is safer; downloading stuff from random
> > websites or from a 'known' repository?
>
> <URL:http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571>

Which was the also the reason I had to stop using OSX 10.4 server


--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
From: chris on 30 Mar 2010 04:22
On 29/03/10 20:18, Ben Shimmin wrote:
> chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com>:
>> On 29/03/10 15:25, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-29 13:45:30 +0100, chris said:
>>>> Where did you get that idea from? Unless you're installing malware, a
>>>> linux machine is as safe with default software as it is with extras
>>>> added.
>>>>
>>>> Installing 'stuff' from the Ubuntu repositories (which are signed) is
>>>> typically very safe.
>>>
>>> Signing is irrelevant, it just proves that it came from Ubuntu.
>>
>> It's not irrelevant. Which is safer; downloading stuff from random
>> websites or from a 'known' repository?
>
> <URL:http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571>
>
> b. --just sayin'

I know. That was a very public and rare exception for which debian was
rightly criticised. Now, as a comparison, how many security
vulnerabilities are there in software from random websites? Or even not
so random ones: Adobe, Realplayer, etc.

It's all relative, as someone once said ;)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Can we please stop winding Rowland up?
Next: Apple RAM pricing