Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Can linux really do that? 2
- Thread starter ohhdamn
- Start date
-
2
- #3
I've never heard that you can do this with Samba. I've seen examples of it being done with BackOrifice, and other hacker tools, though. When you describe this, do you mean as a "crack" or compromise to a Windows system's security, or do you mean that you can configure Samba with the other user's cooperation to be able to "look" at their machine or take screenshots? I doubt that you can do either with Samba. It is just a Windows network share emulator for Unix.
In the original question, I'm not sure if ohhdamn is specifically talking (1)about hacking Windows computers, or (2) the standard X-window method of accessing desktops over the network. If you mean the second choice, then yes, Linux and Unix machines can be set up quite easily to share their desktop environments over a network, with the X Windows system (or XFree86). This is quite a useful tool, because it allows users to "take their desktops with them" using any computer on the network. Often the desktop environments and the actual programs are on the server, while the end-user workstations are only thin clients, with only the necessary software to connect to the users' desktop profiles on the server. This makes it very easy to change offices, make demonstrations, etc...
If he is talking about the first possibility, hacking other computers and directly seeing their desktops, that is actually a kind of naive question. It's not a "can Linux do that" question, but an "Is that possible" question. It's not directly possible to just see someone's desktop data over a network, since computers don't by default send that data through the network, or all networks would be hopelessly clogged. However, if someone hacks into a Windows computer by command line, (or gets' that person to download a virus) he or she can install a piece of desktop-sharing software that can then allow a "stealth" connection to view the user's desktop. BackOrifice, as I said above, has been used to do this quite often. It has nothing to do with Linux, though.
These "destkop-sharing" tools are not necessarily evil cracker tools, but they can sometimes be used that way. Backorifice, used in a network, allows a single administrator to easily monitor many computers. VNC (Virtual Network Computing -- is another very interesting tool. It is a cross-platform desktop sharing tool that allows Windows users, Mac users, Unix users to share desktops or control one computer from another. It was developed by AT&T Laboratories in England. For example--you could enable VNC on your computer, then tell someone accross the world, to run the VNCViewer, connect to a certain IP address, and they can see your desktop and your mouse moving, or you could even allow that user to take temporary control of your computer.
Needless to say, all of these need to be used with extreme care, and they should be turned off or disabled when not specifically needed.
In the original question, I'm not sure if ohhdamn is specifically talking (1)about hacking Windows computers, or (2) the standard X-window method of accessing desktops over the network. If you mean the second choice, then yes, Linux and Unix machines can be set up quite easily to share their desktop environments over a network, with the X Windows system (or XFree86). This is quite a useful tool, because it allows users to "take their desktops with them" using any computer on the network. Often the desktop environments and the actual programs are on the server, while the end-user workstations are only thin clients, with only the necessary software to connect to the users' desktop profiles on the server. This makes it very easy to change offices, make demonstrations, etc...
If he is talking about the first possibility, hacking other computers and directly seeing their desktops, that is actually a kind of naive question. It's not a "can Linux do that" question, but an "Is that possible" question. It's not directly possible to just see someone's desktop data over a network, since computers don't by default send that data through the network, or all networks would be hopelessly clogged. However, if someone hacks into a Windows computer by command line, (or gets' that person to download a virus) he or she can install a piece of desktop-sharing software that can then allow a "stealth" connection to view the user's desktop. BackOrifice, as I said above, has been used to do this quite often. It has nothing to do with Linux, though.
These "destkop-sharing" tools are not necessarily evil cracker tools, but they can sometimes be used that way. Backorifice, used in a network, allows a single administrator to easily monitor many computers. VNC (Virtual Network Computing -- is another very interesting tool. It is a cross-platform desktop sharing tool that allows Windows users, Mac users, Unix users to share desktops or control one computer from another. It was developed by AT&T Laboratories in England. For example--you could enable VNC on your computer, then tell someone accross the world, to run the VNCViewer, connect to a certain IP address, and they can see your desktop and your mouse moving, or you could even allow that user to take temporary control of your computer.
Needless to say, all of these need to be used with extreme care, and they should be turned off or disabled when not specifically needed.
- Thread starter
- #4
Ive been asking alot of questions about linux lately because I plan to switch this week.While talking the pros and cons someone mentioned the security of windows,saying basicly they could walz right in on a windows machine and browse at will(provided that they were on the same server).They would not go in to very much detail though,alot of people like to perpetuate this mystery about linux,almost like they dont want to see it go really public.The first time you ask any question about linux you get the whole lamer bit,which Im pretty sick of.That is why I posted "can LINUX really do that?"Because I figured I could get a straight answer here.
thanks,
Bud Farmer
thanks,
Bud Farmer
Well, Windows 95/98/ME default security is a laughable joke, but with any operating system, there are steps you can take to secure it. ZoneAlarm ( is a good example. Windows NT/2000 is a little more secure, but it still takes a lot of work.
Yeah, I personally am quite tired of the Linux mystique. It is just simply another operating system. It happens to be Open Source, but so are only about 15 or 20 other operating systems. I would argue that it's not even the most technically excellent, although it does involve some brilliant ideas. Just using Linux by no means makes you automatically a guru, no does it include any special "secrets" that you would otherwise never find out.
My personal favorite OS is FreeBSD Unix ( which is actually more "open" than Linux, in the sense that there is absolutely *no* restriction on how you want to use it, commercial or otherwise. FreeBSD is a direct descendent of commercial BSD, the Unix on which much of the Internet was designed and built. Yes, most of the networking protocols we use for Internet communications were designed by and for BSD Unix. You want to see true network performance? Try FreeBSD. Want security? Linux has shown many more serious vulnerabilities than FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. It actually has numerically just about as many vulnerabilities as Windows NT/2000. (just browse )
But in the end, it is not the tool which makes the guru, but the knowledge one uses with the tool. There are some fantastically brilliant developers and administrators who use only Windows, just as there are many brilliant Unix-oriented experts. I think in the end (if you really work at it), you can be more secure in Linux than in Windows, but it's not going to happen just by installing RedHat. It takes a lot of study. I have also found that an "out of the box" installation by FreeBSD or OpenBSD is way more secure than any of the others.
Just my 2 cents; I encourage you no matter what your decision, but make your decision based on serious study, rather than immature rantings by teenage/twentysomething "hackers".
Rick
Yeah, I personally am quite tired of the Linux mystique. It is just simply another operating system. It happens to be Open Source, but so are only about 15 or 20 other operating systems. I would argue that it's not even the most technically excellent, although it does involve some brilliant ideas. Just using Linux by no means makes you automatically a guru, no does it include any special "secrets" that you would otherwise never find out.
My personal favorite OS is FreeBSD Unix ( which is actually more "open" than Linux, in the sense that there is absolutely *no* restriction on how you want to use it, commercial or otherwise. FreeBSD is a direct descendent of commercial BSD, the Unix on which much of the Internet was designed and built. Yes, most of the networking protocols we use for Internet communications were designed by and for BSD Unix. You want to see true network performance? Try FreeBSD. Want security? Linux has shown many more serious vulnerabilities than FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. It actually has numerically just about as many vulnerabilities as Windows NT/2000. (just browse )
But in the end, it is not the tool which makes the guru, but the knowledge one uses with the tool. There are some fantastically brilliant developers and administrators who use only Windows, just as there are many brilliant Unix-oriented experts. I think in the end (if you really work at it), you can be more secure in Linux than in Windows, but it's not going to happen just by installing RedHat. It takes a lot of study. I have also found that an "out of the box" installation by FreeBSD or OpenBSD is way more secure than any of the others.
Just my 2 cents; I encourage you no matter what your decision, but make your decision based on serious study, rather than immature rantings by teenage/twentysomething "hackers".
Rick
- Thread starter
- #6
Im tring to get through all the crap so I can make an informed decision,I dont know enough about programming and program structure to critique the finer points of the different operating systems.I depend on good advice from various sources and hope it all pans out.Not everybody has been "prickish" about answering my questions,but the vast majority have(never here!)and your probally right about teenage/twentysomething hacker punks.Since Im looking for something to use at home for now,I dont need the biggest and the baddest just something to get me going,though a "windows" style desktop is something Ive gotta have to ease the pain of learning.I wouldnt say security is my biggest concern because I dont keep personal info on my computer,but anything better out of the box is better out of the box, period(and cheaper).Who sells FreeBSD,as I need a manual or Ill never get it,Would you recommend this for the home user?Anybody out there had any really good or bad experiences with a certain distro?
Well, FreeBSD does not use the "distro" concept. FreeBSD is FreeBSD, a complete operating system with standard Unix software and utilities, plus literally thousands of applications that have been created for or ported to BSD, which is called the "ports" collection. You can buy a book and 4-CD set at or you can go to the computer section of your local Borders or Barnes & Noble bookstore, and usually there is a 4-CD set with a book for FreeBSD. This should be at least version 4.2 (4.3 is the latest). The base operating system (and then some) easily fits on one CD, but the other 3 CDs have tons of applications for FreeBSD.
If you haven't yet spent enough time with Linux to get accustomed to it, I recommend FreeBSD. It's default install is a little less user-friendly than most Linux distros, but uses extremely logical and well-organized method, so once you get used to it, configuration elements are quick and easy to get to.
Linux tends to make some things a little easier up front, but the internal configuration layout is much more complicated and un-intuitive, and varies badly from one distro to another.
The FreeBSD installer is actually quite easy to use, with the possible exception of the hard disk partitioning and formatting section, but if you read the book, it should get you past that quite easily. Don't be afraid to mess around with it, because you can always go back and start again.
Another plus: FreeBSD runs quite well even on older machines. If you have an old Pentium 100 with 16 MB RAM sitting around, it will easily run a whole network and intranet website without breaking a sweat. (I have done it even with a 486). You can also use it to emulate a Windows NT server, providing user authentication on a network, and disk shares which run right from the Unix disk partition but are still accessible in the Windows Network Neighborhood browser. it includes X-windows, which you will want for your graphical environment, although once you spend a bit of time, you will learn to love the command line. I recommend using the KDE 2 window manager as your default X-windows environment.
If you want to go with Linux, I recommend Slackware, which is about the most BSD-like of the Linuxes.
If you haven't yet spent enough time with Linux to get accustomed to it, I recommend FreeBSD. It's default install is a little less user-friendly than most Linux distros, but uses extremely logical and well-organized method, so once you get used to it, configuration elements are quick and easy to get to.
Linux tends to make some things a little easier up front, but the internal configuration layout is much more complicated and un-intuitive, and varies badly from one distro to another.
The FreeBSD installer is actually quite easy to use, with the possible exception of the hard disk partitioning and formatting section, but if you read the book, it should get you past that quite easily. Don't be afraid to mess around with it, because you can always go back and start again.
Another plus: FreeBSD runs quite well even on older machines. If you have an old Pentium 100 with 16 MB RAM sitting around, it will easily run a whole network and intranet website without breaking a sweat. (I have done it even with a 486). You can also use it to emulate a Windows NT server, providing user authentication on a network, and disk shares which run right from the Unix disk partition but are still accessible in the Windows Network Neighborhood browser. it includes X-windows, which you will want for your graphical environment, although once you spend a bit of time, you will learn to love the command line. I recommend using the KDE 2 window manager as your default X-windows environment.
If you want to go with Linux, I recommend Slackware, which is about the most BSD-like of the Linuxes.
- Thread starter
- #8
Ive spent the last couple of days reading all I could find about the 8.6 million forms of Linux.Yours is not the first recommendation for slackware,so I ordered "slackware 7.1 new install" on ebay for $8.95 so in about a week I should be ready to pull some hair!I dont think Ill have any problems with the install since I wore the "slack" forum out last week installing zipslack.Thanks for you input and for future questons I will have!
B.F
B.F
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question