Mac OS X
Introduction It is generally stupid to talk about individual vulnerabilities without taking into account the general architecture of a particular hfsplus centos write a prisoner segment, especially set of ports opened across the segment. Also routers, switches and even network printers can be as vulnerable or even more vulnerable then individual Linux servers or desktops.
Internet routers are now the most common point of attacks on individual home computers. That means that the usage of a proxy server after the rounter using some kind of Firewall Micro Appliance for internet access now should be viewed as the necessary evil, as the "best practice".
But unfortunately in home networks they are not widely used, mostly because the user lack the necessary skills. That is often true even for home netwrk of system administrators, who are lazy enough to configure VPN for connection with the organization and use completely separate, not connected to home network computer to work with corporate server.
Duel use laptops in such case is huge evil.
Which means that home networks of system administrators often represent the weakest link in corporate security and the optimal entry point for a determined hacker into corporate or some other networks. It can take various forms. With the most recent, most stunning example being Hillary Clinton email scandal which demonstrated that shadow IT represents a significant and underappreciated danger.
The hfsplus drive has journeling enabled. I happen to be using Centos as my linux system. It appears you can mount a non-journeled hfsplus drive and write to it with no issues. As the wiki page for HFSPlus says, the project to fully support write on HFS+ under linux was taken up under Google summer of code a couple years ago, but I don’t think it was ever completed. So, the ‘force’ option merely hides the warning, assuming you know what you’re doing! Top Vulnerabilities in Linux Environment. News. Potemkin Villages of Computer Security: Recommended Books. appropriate permissions. This could be done by adding the appropriate permission (ro for Read-only or rw for Read-Write) after the IP address or domain name of your NFS client in the /etc/exports file. * CentOS 7 Server.
And the level of stupidity and greed cannot be overestimated. Note that the level of qualification of system administrators in this case was average at best, and even NIST recommendations were ignored in setup and maintenance of the server s. So people who installed and maintained the server were not qualified to do that.
And such situation is typical for shadow IT. So the security and vulnerability of Linux is only a small part of the whole puzzle. Human factor is another important variable and some user represent natural Trojan horse in corporate networks.
That means that many organizations which enforce monthly or even more frequent patching in a vain attempt to increase their server security actually lower it, as they are barking to the wrong tree.
Fascination with the installation of multiple security products on a corporate desktop is another cancer that recently hit corporate networks. Usefulness of AV in protection of Linux and linux workstations is highly questionable and attempt to "unify" them with Windows are badly advised.
Also security vulnerability patches are created equal. Only very few of them represent remotely exploitable vulnerability and even those presuppose that specific ports are open. Claims that open source software is more secure then proprietary solutions can not be taken at their face value.
Theoretically this is true, but the complexity of open source software negates this. According the US Government's database of computer security vulnerabilities maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology http: And this is not surprising as Linux has more goodies installed in the standard setup and more ports opened recently that changed in RHEL.
But if linux installed in minimal configuration as it should many of those vulnerabilities are related to non-existent packages and protocols. So the reverse is true -- minimized linux even without hardening is much more secure than any, even hardened, Windows desktop or server.
Also many vulnerabilities are applicable only to specific version of linux or application, or protocol In MarchForrester Research published a report that came to the conclusion that Linux is no more secure than Windows.
Also Linux in practice especially in home networks is often running with firewall disabled, which is big "no-no" security wise. Amateur users often use root as their user account -- another bog "no-no". Add to this mind boggling complexity of modern Linux where even Apache server probably requires years of study to be configured and used properly and you get the picture.
It is true that Windows is often used is less secure way then Linux with the user operating all the time from Administrator account or equivalentbut if regular user account is used such mechanisms for providing security as Windows Group policy and cryptographically signed executables beats Linux in default configuration.
An excellent security system introduced by Suse AppArmor did not became Linux standard. Red Hat SElinux that few people understand and few configure correctly most often disable is dominant. Only Solaris is competitive in this area.
It also benefits from security via obscurity, especially if deployed on Sparc servers. Another key factor that the number of security flaws discovered is generally proportional to market share, so the dominant OS is the most natural target of attacks.
This issue on a new level is often replayed in Linux vs. In security, being a non-mainstream has its own set of advantages.
There is huge and lucrative market for Windows zero days exploits. Some market exist for Linux too. There is no such market for Solaris. There is also government sponsored hackers who develop professional exploit for both windows and Linux. Stuxnet, Flame and subsequent set of nasty worms were developed by government and later those technologies fall into the hand of the hackers.
Unlike regular munitions, cyber weapons did not explode on contact.cpk1: if you can get to tty1 then you can look at attheheels.com and see if it is using "nv" or "vesa" otherwise the help when the cd first boots should tell you the grub option to use.
I want to mount an hfsplus hard drive on a linux system and write to it.
The hfsplus drive has journeling enabled. I happen to be using Centos as my linux system. attheheels.coms builds an HFS Plus file system on the specified special device.
Before running attheheels.coms the disk should be partitioned using the Disk Utility application or pdisk (8).
The file system default parameters are calculated based on the size of the disk partition. Mount a HFSPlus disk with read/write permissions in Linux.
Ask Question. I also ran sudo attheheels.coms -f /dev/sdc2 following the blog post linked to in the answer and added the -f flag after fsck didn't want to perform a check of a journaled system.
this ran nicely up until. The IT service was very timely and was surprisingly high quality. The building is even ADA compliant which is super exciting for me because I'm in a wheelchair. Top Vulnerabilities in Linux Environment. News. Potemkin Villages of Computer Security: Recommended Books.
appropriate permissions. This could be done by adding the appropriate permission (ro for Read-only or rw for Read-Write) after the IP address or domain name of your NFS client in the /etc/exports file.
* CentOS 7 Server.