This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

oh well...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2002 07:07 AM
well let's look at this topic.
what is said here is take an old operation system and install it and most "hackers" will go away.
this is probably true, an old OS will probably get visited as much as a new one but most will leave it alone, but then again these should qualify as the low level "hackers" which uses pre made exploits and automatic "hacker" tools, these are the ones you can most easily protect yourself from by hardening you OS, new or old version. the other kind is the more high level hackers which are the ones you really want to know about and these will probably figure out what you are up to and attack if it pleases them.
the question is what the gain of using an older OS would be, do you want to get the attack rate down or keep them out?
to take this a step further why not get a few guys together and start building your own OS which no one else knows about now in this kind of thinking this would make it really secure since no one knows how to use it. but does that make is secure? sure you will get most "hackers" to turn back but the most "dangerous" ones are, if they are interested in what you have, attack anyway and perhaps even just because it's a challange.
the only times I would use an older system (which should be patched up and hardened in any case) is if I want a really stable OS (for instance use the 2.2.x kernel instead of the newer 2.4.x) or if the hardware is to old to handle the newer more demanding software.


Return to Security through obsolescence