Audit Linux privileges now to limit compromise, escalation, and system-wide damage. Review Linux Privileges×
Server Security
security advisory patch management
security advisory patch management There are several reasons why Linux has such a good reputation and has become such a good standard across the world. It is the power behind most internet servers and cloud infrastructures as well as billions of Android devices. It is stable, has consistently high-performance levels, and remains very flexible. You don’t have to deal with expensive licenses, can view and share code, and can customize any part of the interface to suit your demands. In an age of data breaches and continuous...
Jul 27, 2026
Server Securitysecurity practices application security
security practices application security Accepting file uploads is basically inviting strangers to throw random objects through your front window and hoping your living room furniture catches them. Whether it's profile pictures, PDF invoices, or archive files, handling raw uploads means you're trusting external input to behave. . The file sitting on your disk isn't actually the threat. A malicious JPEG doesn't execute code just by existing in a directory. The real danger is the parser—the image library, the unmanaged C-based PDF...
Jul 27, 2026
Security Vulnerabilities email security Linux server
email security Linux server You've probably trained your team to look for red flags. Odd sender names, urgent language, mismatched links. But a well-crafted spoofed email won't trip any of those wires. It looks legitimate, sounds legitimate, and often comes from a domain that passes every automated check you throw at it. . Attackers know exactly how humans scan an inbox. They design around it. This guide walks you through the techniques attackers use to slip a spoofed email past both your filters and your users and what...
Jul 25, 2026
Security Vulnerabilities cisa kev vulnerability prioritization
cisa kev vulnerability prioritization Most Linux teams don't struggle to find vulnerabilities anymore. They struggle to decide which ones deserve attention first. Between daily scanner results, vendor advisories, and hundreds of new CVEs each month, the challenge isn't visibility—it's prioritization. . To solve this, organizations typically lean on the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) and CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog. But these aren’t competing lists. They answer two entirely different questions. While the...
Jul 22, 2026
Desktop Securitysecurity advisory vulnerability
security advisory vulnerability GNOME is officially shortening its standard vulnerability disclosure window from 90 days to 30 days, a change that impacts upstream maintainers, downstream Linux distributions, and system administrators in how they handle software vulnerabilities. The policy shift, announced by long-time security coordinator Michael Catanzaro , addresses modern software patching realities and a growing influx of automated submissions. . Because GNOME is the default desktop environment on several major Linux...
Jul 21, 2026
Refine news
X Clear Filters
Get the latest News and Insights
Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.
Community Poll
Are host-based firewalls still worth using?
Trending News
Loading...
Explore Latest Linux Security news
We found -1 articles for you...
82
security improvementsgovernment technologymanagement practicesInnovative Practices Needed for Federal Cybersecurity Accountability
Granted, popular enterprise technology is nowhere as secure as it should be, but today's federal cybersecurity woes result more from flawed technology management practices than flawed technology. To that end, we need to foster and reward innovative, effective management processes in the federal computer security arena and terminate the current technology management and oversight philosophy that tolerates and rewards idleness and mediocrity while doing little to actually eliminate them. The standards for acceptable cybersecurity are known: it's time to start holding the people in charge accountable to them. . . .. Over the past several years, various Washington entities, from the General Accounting Office to assorted Congressional committees, conducted surveys and issued reports on the state of the federal government's information security posture. In each case, with few exceptions, the findings range from the scathing to the downright embarrassing, and remain essentially unchanged since the mid-1990s. Like any other issue involving government oversight, this process has become an annual Washington tradition - the reports are released; there's back-and-forth blather in Congress about how we need "to do more" to secure our federal networks; agency leaders and CIOs are called to testify on the Hill; some more blather, and perhaps a piece of legislation is introduced and dies before reaching the floor; and then the issue recedes into digital memory until next year's survey results are released -- and the process begins anew, with little or nothing really changing. It's no different than our annual visit to the dentist. We know he's going to admonish us to brush more and cut out the sweets, and we know that we're going to be embarrassed or uncomfortable as he tells us this to our face and makes notes in our patient file, but we endure it year after year, because it's something we have to do for good oral hygiene. Of course, we ignore his advice because it's inconvenient and, besides, candy is a tastier snack thancelery. This seems to be the approach taken by the majority of the federal government when dealing with the security of federal information systems. As you can see in the following articles going back to the late 1990s, there's much bad news and many prescriptions for improving things, but the patient refuses to cooperate....and the dentist is powerless (in this case, unwilling) to force him to change his ways. In some cases, these reports show marked improvements in specific offices or sub-agencies of the federal government, and those success stories should be made known both to the American people (as a sign that there are clueful security people making a difference in their agencies) and throughout the federal government as a helpful roadmap to improve security practices elsewhere. Unfortunately, these few truly noteworthy success stories are seldom reported by the mainstream press because good news doesn't pull in the ratings the way gloom, doom, and old-fashioned Washington finger-pointing does. Like the much-vaunted but ineffective "certification and accreditation" process required for government and military systems, these annual assessments are an exercise in bureaucratic idleness designed to "address" but not "resolve" security problems in any meaningful fashion. After several years, the logic seems to be "why fix the problem when talking about it keeps us (and our contractors) employed?" As a result, and contrary to popular belief and rhetoric, security for federal systems has been reduced to a check-box on our government's annual to-do list -- as long as federal enterprise leaders can prove that work is being done on the matter, that's perfectly acceptable, it seems, because in federal security circles, "activity" (e.g., certification and accreditation) has been confused with "progress" (e.g., actually fixing things) and "job security" has been confused with "effective security." Agency leaders confirming this with Congress each year generally can avoid anything stronger than a verbal reprimandabout their job performance, no matter how dismal security really is back home. The link for this article located at infowarrior.org is no longer available. . Over the past several years, various Washington entities, from the General Accounting Office to asso. granted, popular, enterprise, technology, nowhere, secure, should, today's, federal. . Anthony Pell
Mar 23, 2004
•
Government
82
policy changesfederal cybersecuritycybersecurity advisorHoward Schmidt's Exit Sparks Concerns Over Federal Cybersecurity Focus
White House cybersecurity adviser Howard Schmidt will step down from his post at the end of the month. The move comes only two months after Richard Clarke resigned as special adviser to the president for cyberspace security, shortly after the release . . . . White House cybersecurity adviser Howard Schmidt will step down from his post at the end of the month. The move comes only two months after Richard Clarke resigned as special adviser to the president for cyberspace security, shortly after the release of the Bush administration's strategy to secure cyberspace. Security analysts and vendors worry that cybersecurity is less of a priority for the federal government and that there will be no single administration official focused on getting the private and public sectors working together to secure the nation's digital infrastructure. "It's a revolving door at the top," says Pete Lindstrom, research director at Spire Security. "Is that indicative of the lack of authority of the position?" The top cybersecurity official in the administration after Schmidt's expected departure will be Robert Liscouski. As assistant secretary of infrastructure protection at the Homeland Security Department, Liscouski has responsibility for securing both the country's physical and digital infrastructures. The link for this article located at InformationWeek is no longer available. . The departure of Jane Collins from the Pentagon introduces doubts regarding national defense initiatives.. Federal Cybersecurity,Cybersecurity Roles,Digital Threats. . Anthony Pell
Apr 30, 2003
•
Government
82
national securitysecurity enhancementsfederal cybersecurityGovnet Strategy: Clarke's Vision for Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement
Speaking before a conference of hundreds of federal technology personnel and industry officials Wednesday morning, Richard Clarke, President Bush's point man on national cybersecurity, outlined the next phase in the controversial plan to build an impenetrable information network for the federal government, known as Govnet. . . .. Speaking before a conference of hundreds of federal technology personnel and industry officials Wednesday morning, Richard Clarke, President Bush's point man on national cybersecurity, outlined the next phase in the controversial plan to build an impenetrable information network for the federal government, known as Govnet. Clarke said a team from the General Services Administration had completed a review of more than 167 responses from technology companies on how the network could be built, and that the reviewers had concluded that creating a stand-alone network, one not connected to the vulnerable systems of any other networks, is technologically feasible. Clarke added that some Defense Department and intelligence agencies, as well as some organizations in the Energy Department, already operate these kinds of solo networks today. The government can't afford to put off major upgrades to information security, Clarke said, noting that terrorists have continued to call upon their followers to attack the nation's critical infrastructure of power grids and information systems, many of which are connected to the Internet. The link for this article located at GovExec is no longer available. . Speaking before a conference of hundreds of federal technology personnel and industry officials Wedn. speaking, conference, hundreds, federal, technology, personnel, industry, officials. . Anthony Pell
Apr 19, 2002
•
Government
74
network threatsdata integritysecurity initiativesFederal Cybersecurity Concerns: SANS Insights From Executives
The SANS Institute revealed Tuesday that the top computer security concerns of 56 federal executives and administrators are: systems being used to attack other agencies' systems; computers being taken off-line for weeks because of hacker-caused corruption; and hackers changing data on . . . . The SANS Institute revealed Tuesday that the top computer security concerns of 56 federal executives and administrators are: systems being used to attack other agencies' systems; computers being taken off-line for weeks because of hacker-caused corruption; and hackers changing data on websites to mislead the public, according to a study conducted by the security research and education organization. The study also found that the most difficult barriers to overcome in improving federal network security included lack of security skills in system and network administrators; inability to gain consensus or standards on which problems to fix first; and resistance to security initiatives. The link for this article located at TechWeb is no longer available. . Uncover leading safety challenges voiced by 56 government leaders, encompassing cyber intrusions and information reliability threats.. federal security concerns, network security issues, executive insights, SANS report, cybersecurity challenges. . Anthony Pell
Sep 14, 2000
•
Network Security
Get the latest News and Insights
Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.
Community Poll
Are host-based firewalls still worth using?
Trending News
Search Topics
Powered By
Linux Security - Your source for Top Linux News, Advisories, HOWTOs and Feature Releases
QUICK LINKS
subscribe to newsletters!
Like staying secure? So do we.
Sign up for updates, tips, and alerts!