[ale] Is this BS?

[Jim Kinney]

Windows has become far better out of the box in the past 5 years. But so
has several major Linux distros. RedHat 6 installed with a basic apache
server with defaults is very, very secure. Between iptables and selinux,
remote bad guy, and local bad users would be quite stymied attempting to
access areas not allowed.
The firewall in Fedora 19 is using the successor to iptables and is even
more robust. The fully enforcing, targeted selinux is very complete at
allowing only that which should occur.
It would make a good challenge to have an out of the box windows server vs
Linux server crack-a-thon. I suspect it would be very, very close if not a
tie. And the failures would be different.
Hmm. A pair of as released systems against a pair of upgraded systems would
be a good showcase.
On May 22, 2014 5:13 PM, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.com> wrote:

> I am currently talking with someone who claims Windows is more secure than
> linux "out of the box". Is the following comment by him BS? I can't find
> anything on google and I've never heard there is anything you have to do
> after installing debian or ubuntu to make it secure.
>
> > Most distros (Debian and Ubuntu for example, as I've already pointed
> out) come with services running
> > that don't need to be by default and no default block input policy.
> obviously this doesn't make one more
> > secure than another, but a user needs to know to disable those, or bind
> them to loopback or even just
> > protect them with iptables.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20140522/d20eea08/attachment.html>