My friend runs a pretty high volume web and mail server on Mandrake.
Debian Server - 2 sites Web/NATgateway/mail/Database/Firewall/Samba/Printer
Red Hat Server - All other testing and development as well as DesktopCode:sysadmin@gateway:~$ uptime 00:46:23 up 55 days, 31 min, 4 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 sysadmin@gateway:~$
Both systems had never miss a beat ...Code:[sysadmin@supra sysadmin]$ uptime 00:47am up 37 days, 3:09, 2 users, load average: 1.06, 1.13, 1.12 [sysadmin@supra sysadmin]$
webserver suse 7.3 running Apache 1.3.20 and MySQL
whoohoo!!Code:darth:/var/log/httpd # uptime 4:38am up 97 days, 37 min, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 darth:/var/log/httpd #
coltrane was rebooted during the upgrade, therefore i wont post his stats....i built badu and never used her, what a waste
go with red hat if you wanna get haXed
How so?go with red hat if you wanna get haXed
Also, any distro is as good or secure as any other for a server if you have some experience as a sysadmin and do not just rely on the default bloated install.
Red Hat tends not to use the tried and trusted package versions as some of the other distros (like Slack/Debian or say OpenBSD)
Thus it leaves you with security holes right out of the box, and granted that isnt such a bad thing if you are a sysadmin that is right on top of things. However I would much rather have a system setup that has the package versions that have been in use for sometime and have all the known security holes plugged. Red Hat seems to add more features at the expense of security.
Getting the latest and greatest version of Red Hat will leave you with a system that works great, but is without a doubt filled with security holes that have yet to be discovered (or much less patched by RH).
Only if I were 100% sure in the quality of my firewall, then I would use Red Hat for my serving, especially since it offers a company backing it (which is infinitely good if you are a company or just a skeptic)
The OS has it's place, just not in a situation like this imo.
I guess you're right. The way I look at it is, make sure you have reliable, secure versions of any service you are going to offer publiclly (well, as reliable and secure as a service can get), then firewall everything else. Of course, if you offer shell accounts, securing your box gets harder, and in this instance, I don't think I would trust RH either. But, there are always going to be new exploits that effect a wide range of distros that offer newer releases of services (like the recent BIND 9 DOS vunerbalities), and in this case, mostly everyone is effected.
I look at it this way: if you stay somewhat aware of the exploit landscape, you can have a decently secure box no matter which distro you choose. On the same note, you will never ever have a 100% secure box no matter how new or old or tried and true you think your OS is. It isn;t just the bleeding edge that gets haxored. I just saw Solaris 6/7 exploits release on bugtraq today.
*slackware*
11:36am up 57 days, 14:20, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
[quote author=jbstew32 link=board=4;threadid=948;start=0#6916 date=1023215874]
go with red hat if you wanna get haXed
[/quote]
I would say go with Windoze if you wanna get 'haXed'
My vote goes for RedHat or OpenBSD, depending on how comfortable with *NIX you are. I disagree with the previous post about RH's insecurity. That is total crap, by my book. RH has its auiting process and if it doesn't pass, it isnt included. Thats why ReiserFS still has yet to be included in RH as an FS option.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks