Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Lobster · Posted: Wed 19 Aug 2009, 03:30 Post subject:

Using something like this for penetration testing (sounds a bit erotic to me)
http://www.pentoo.ch/
should keep the tin hats happy for a while . . .

Let us know of any vulnerabilities
one or two of us might even care . . . Wink

Bruce B · Posted: Wed 19 Aug 2009, 05:04 Post subject:

Lobster · Posted: Tue 13 Oct 2009, 21:04 Post subject:

clarf · Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 606 Location: The old Lone Wolf

A short answer for the initial question. Windows never was designed with security in mind.

If you read:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139364/In_six_years_of_Patch_Tuesdays_400_security_bulletins_745_vulnerabilities?taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=1

Then you´ll see that Microsoft had released so many security patchs for each Windows versions that you´ll conclude this software quality standards and design are very poor for a secure OS.

It´s true that recently Microsoft redesigned the architecture of Windows and Microsoft have many defense-in-depth improvements in Windows Vista. Even the level of security alerts are fewer than XP:

There are other technologies like Kernel Patch Protection (protects code and critical structures in the Windows kernel from modification), user account control (Microsoft called UAC one of the "most controversial" features of Vista for the thousands of unnecessary prompts fo each system change) and others in the way for Windows 7:

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowssecurity/archive/2009/04/20/windows-7-security-helping-enable-the-mobile-workforce.aspx

But those technologies are immature, problematic and the better ones are aimed for Server versions (the expensive line), future releases (x64 architectures) and are not available for end users using standards Windows versions.

That's why Linux which is based on BSD Unix at its heart, are fundamentally safer. Their design were multi-user, networked systems to support Server machines.

clarf

PaulBx1 · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2308 Location: Wyoming, USA

drongo · Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 328 Location: UK

Who uses Puppy this way? Well I do, a lot of the time, depending on which machine I am using. I have never done a full or frugal install of Puppy in the five years or so I have been using it.

It always surprises me when people on this Forum claim to know how everyone else uses Puppy. You don't know, I don't know, Barry doesn't know, nobody knows. I have no idea if most people use full, frugal, multi-session or whatever. It started life as a live-CD and that is mostly how I use it. Some machines I use may have a pupsave, but most don't.

I don't know what the rest of you do, I suspect some of the longer-term users still use pfix=ram. But I really don't know, and neither does anybody else.

If I use pfix=ram I don't need the tin-foil hat.

I don't do online banking and probably never will.

sikpuppy · Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 433

If linux had a unified set of default software and settings, as does Windows, it would be just as insecure (or secure).

Because each installation of Linux differs by at least some degree, unless it's on identical computers, any malware doesn't have much of a chance to propagate beyond that same setup.

I suppose I get a bit tired of people claiming Linux is so secure that it never gets hacked, because in fact it does get hacked, and for the reason I mentioned before. Large corporations and governments who use Linux often have many identical machines, running identical Linux setups. Since they are all up to the same "patch" level for vulnerabilities then it stands to reason that they are all vulnerable.

However, for the average user on a small network this generally isn't an issue, and that is a reason I can see that people feel (for the wrong reasons) that Linux is necessarily more secure than Windows.

Sylvander · Posted: Tue 10 Nov 2009, 16:17 Post subject:

1. "I don't do online banking and probably never will."
There's no way I'd be without my online banking; it's just so convenient.
The stuff I can do with it is just SUPERB! [Just like Puppy]

When I went looking for a more secure operating system than Windows, to use for online banking...
A friend suggested I give Puppy Linux a try.
I'd tried a number of Linux distros, and Puppy was the 1st that made we want to stay with it; with the others it seemed to me like pulling teeth just to get the simplest things done.

I'm happy that the techniques I use in conjunction with Puppy provide an adequate level of security.

PaulBx1 · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2308 Location: Wyoming, USA

drongo · Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 328 Location: UK

It's not my solution! My point is merely that, as originally designed, Puppy is fairly safe even with a default root user. With no persistent storage it's about as safe as you can get with a reboot clearing out all nasties.

Mind you earlier Puppies seemed to boot faster (or that may just be my faulty memory) so rebooting was not much of a chore.

You get quite good at using the Network Wizard after the first hundred times.

If people want to install a live CD that is their lookout. I'm still intrigued enough by the possibility of a live-CD OS to be sad enough to want to use it that way. The only thing I ever saw that had this capability before Knoppix was Solaris on a SPARC workstation in about 1995 (boy, were those guys ahead of their time - and very expensive.)

If you do a full install and run as root I'd say you are probably not that secure, except that Puppy has a different file structure to the traditional Linuxes so you are relying on security through obscurity. It seems to be similar to Slackware in some ways, so if there were a Slack-specific virus/logger/rootkit/whatever I suppose that might be a problem.

Recent events on one of the websites indicate that we have now raised our heads above the parapet enough to be a target.

I think I'll erase pupsave now! Now where is my tinfoil hat?

Pizzasgood · Posted: Wed 11 Nov 2009, 18:44 Post subject:

Playing the devils advocate: Rather than rerun the network wizard (and rather than always type in pfix=ram) a chronic pfix=ram'er could simply make a remaster that has the network preconfigured and pfix=ram set up by default. Include some bookmarks and home page while he's at it.

Those few steps can go a long way toward making pfix=ram mode tolerable.

(Assuming the same machine/network were being used each time. This isn't as useful to a nomad.)

drongo · Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 328 Location: UK

That's a very good suggestion Pizzasgood. Even if you used two or three wireless hotspots it would work fine.

Back when new versions of Puppy were coming out every couple of weeks I guess it would have been too much trouble. Now there is a slightly more sedate pace it would be a good idea.

Never thought of myself as a chronic pfix=ram'er before. Do I need help?

Pizzasgood · Posted: Wed 11 Nov 2009, 19:39 Post subject:

If you typically use your OS in a mode that does not retain malware, you probably don't need help. Or at least, less help than the average computer user.....