Q: thinking about going to ext3 on a server project, with a little luck? or imagine a better, more stable alternative?
Best Answer: Your first section is correct in that basic "install backdoor and hack" is a vulnerability independent to OS type.
The second section is not correct. A competent hacker can access a vulnerable system without you having to except or install anything. The main reason why windows in more vulnerable to this kind of attack is two fold. First more people use Windows there for a larger number of people are good at hacking Windows. Two windows is a OS based on profit margins, meaning that more sloppy code is let past in order to get the OS out the door.
I will try to explain your question in the third section.
If you OS has a vulnerability that will allow me to tell it to execute a command then I can use this to get it to run something or install something that will allow me to get around your security measures.
For example there was many instances of IE vulnerabilities that allowed remote users to execute VB scripts on a system running that version of IE. This would allow a user to embed a trojan within a VB script and have the target system run this script.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Ext3 would be the best choice overall because it's the most stable and always supported by companies like RedHat and SuSe. I would avoid reiserfs at all costs, I've just not had any luck with it in the past. I personally use XFS on a lot of my machines but nothing production at work, but I would be confident enough to use it if I thought it would make a noticable difference in performance.
Also even though MySQL isn't as good of a database as Firebird or PGSql it's the best to learn right now because it's the most popular free database.
I know it's popular, but I'm not going to be using any turn-key systems like phpMyAdmin or similar packages. Everything will have a custom web interface. This is why I just want to start off with a super-reliable database and rock and roll from there.
Re:Anyone ever do testing or work with JFS?
Re:Ext3 would be the best choice overall because it's the most stable and always supported by companies like RedHat and SuSe. I would avoid reiserfs at all costs, I've just not had any luck with it in the past. I personally use XFS on a lot of my machines but nothing production at work, but I would be confident enough to use it if I thought it would make a noticable difference in performance.
Also even though MySQL isn't as good of a database as Firebird or PGSql it's the best to learn right now because it's the most popular free database.
Re:Update: Firebird…oooh
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Benchmarking isn't that difficult once you get a test system setup. Copy the database to the partition and then test, reformat to reiserfs then copy the database over and test it, reformat it to jfs then copy over the database to it and test… etc etc etc etc.
It shouldn't be that hard.
And also don't forget about Firebird database! It's a open source version of Borland's Interbase.
I've only heard about that briefly, looking on their site right now. How's it compare in terms of reliability and functionality to PostgreSQL?
Re::)
Benchmarking isn't that difficult once you get a test system setup. Copy the database to the partition and then test, reformat to reiserfs then copy the database over and test it, reformat it to jfs then copy over the database to it and test… etc etc etc etc.
It shouldn't be that hard.
And also don't forget about Firebird database! It's a open source version of Borland's Interbase.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
ext3 is best for servers.
ReiserFS is completely overrated, the version 3 in the kernel is not supported well by it's creator and in version 4 is not ready for prime time.
And XFS has 'issues' (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html) due to the commodity nature of PC hardware. Anyways in the realworld the performance avantages of them over ext3 is minor.
Yeah, so far ext3 still seems like the best option. I'm learning more about networking/business machines/linux right now and my goal is to get the best stability available. Same with databases – I'm learning PostgreSQL instead of MySQL because pqSQL is ACID-compliant (and has some other nice features ). Sure MySQL + ReiserFS would be faster, but my application is for less than 50 users on a decent machine, so it's not a big issue. At least, I hope not 
I'll find out when I start building lol.
Re:ext3 is best for servers.
ReiserFS is completely overrated, the version 3 in the kernel is not supported well by it's creator and in version 4 is not ready for prime time.
And XFS has 'issues' (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html) due to the commodity nature of PC hardware. Anyways in the realworld the performance avantages of them over ext3 is minor.
Re:I'd go with xfs. ReiserFS is fast, but it has the reputation of going to sh!t every once in a while. It's rare, but do ya wanna risk it?
Re:ReiserFS, or if using huge files, XFS. Ext3 is only good if you absolutely need to maintain compatability with ext2.
0 Comments.