LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Security
User Name
Password
Linux - Security This forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2007, 02:07 PM   #1
MBA Whore
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Distribution: PCLOS 32 bit
Posts: 515

Rep: Reputation: 30
Question Safety: Primary Partition and Extended (Logical) Partition


Hi all,

For a linux setup, which is generally safer from viruses, malware, etc:

primary partition OR.....
extendend (logical) partition

I know you would need at least one primary for the OS, but I was just curious about swap and home....should they be primary or extended..........or does it not matter?

Thanks!
 
Old 01-01-2007, 02:08 PM   #2
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,398

Rep: Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965
malware??? how is that relevant to a partitioning scheme?? either way the simpler the better, if you don't need more than 4 partitions, then primary is the natural preference. of course things like lvm supercede conventional partitioning anyway...
 
Old 01-01-2007, 05:09 PM   #3
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728
splitting hairs to the max....

Extended and Logical are not the same thing. Extended is commonly described as a "container" for logical partitions but even that is incorrect. Once you start with an extended and then one or more logicals, you set up a linked list. If you look at the structure of an logical partition, it is identical to a primary. The only difference is that its boot sector has the link to the next logical (if any)
 
Old 01-01-2007, 05:28 PM   #4
saikee
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Distribution: Any free distro.
Posts: 3,398
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Commands affecting the partitions are system-related and requires root privileges. If you do not log in as root nobody can touch your partition table.

Keep a copy of the partition table, say a print out of "fdisk-l", if you are worried about losing it. With the record you can rebuild it.

Done mine many times and I rebuilt over 60 partitions in some disks.

The entire partition table of a hard disk is only 64 bytes long and a user can rebuild it using any of the Linux partitioning tool. The question is where is the record of it?
 
Old 01-01-2007, 05:51 PM   #5
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 12,286

Rep: Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBA Whore
I was just curious about swap and home....should they be primary or extended..........or does it not matter?
Doesn't matter - I prefer logicals, because I can't live with just 4 partitions.
And this
Quote:
I know you would need at least one primary for the OS
is just plain wrong.
Linux doesn't need any primaries - don't associate M$oft shortcomings to Linux.
 
Old 01-01-2007, 07:39 PM   #6
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,378

Rep: Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108Reputation: 1108
The partitioning scheme that you use does not have any bearing upon system security. If you're careful, the same is true in both Windows and Linux.

The potential of a program depends entirely on what the operating system in question allows that program to do. In the early days of personal computing, "all programs were trusted," and the computer would obey any instruction given to it. When viruses began to appear, and especially when the Internet appeared, that no longer was acceptable. Unix (which had to withstand attacks from very-bored but very-bright geniuses at MIT and elsewhere on timesharing systems in the 70's) always had that notion, and so did Linux. With Windows it is a recent invention.

You should always run each system from a "limited user," and in the case of Windows you should not run FAT32 file systems anywhere. (Why? Because FAT32 has no concept of "file ownership.") The operating system, whether Unix or Linux or Windows, should never assume that any program or any user is "s/he who must be obeyed."
 
Old 01-02-2007, 05:39 PM   #7
MBA Whore
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Distribution: PCLOS 32 bit
Posts: 515

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Cool.....

Cool...thanks for all the input. I guess as far as my simple demands go...it doesn't matter.

Thanks again folks.
 
Old 01-02-2007, 05:45 PM   #8
MBA Whore
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Distribution: PCLOS 32 bit
Posts: 515

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Would that explain.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
You should always run each system from a "limited user," and in the case of Windows you should not run FAT32 file systems anywhere. (Why? Because FAT32 has no concept of "file ownership.") The operating system, whether Unix or Linux or Windows, should never assume that any program or any user is "s/he who must be obeyed."

Here is my setup:

Windows XP Pro / Linux Mepis 6 (dual boot)

Windows hdd is primary.....1st partition is NTFS, 2nd partition is FAT32 (data storage only)
Linux hdd is secondary...standard /, swap and home partion

When in Linux, if I look at the files I have stored in FAT32, I can not assign permissions to them. I know this applies to Windows, but does this also apply to Linux?

Would that explain why I kept banging my head while getting nowhere with Linux / FAT32 permission assignments? I simply couldn't set up permissions assignments in FAT32 like I could in EXT3.

/ feels dumb already.....
 
Old 01-02-2007, 06:28 PM   #9
saikee
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Distribution: Any free distro.
Posts: 3,398
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Fat32 is an old filing system that cannot not be protected.

Stop flogging the dead horse.

Last edited by saikee; 01-03-2007 at 06:16 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2007, 01:53 AM   #10
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,398

Rep: Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965Reputation: 1965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBA Whore
When in Linux, if I look at the files I have stored in FAT32, I can not assign permissions to them. I know this applies to Windows, but does this also apply to Linux?

Would that explain why I kept banging my head while getting nowhere with Linux / FAT32 permission assignments? I simply couldn't set up permissions assignments in FAT32 like I could in EXT3.
well if you were able to assign permissions and ownerships, where would that information go? clearly it has to go in the filesystem itself, so it has to be a basic function of that filesystem. Linux has no business prodividng functionality of a filesystem if it doesn't exist...
 
Old 01-03-2007, 02:48 AM   #11
chort
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Silicon Valley, USA
Distribution: OpenBSD 4.6, OS X 10.6.2, CentOS 4 & 5
Posts: 3,660

Rep: Reputation: 69
File system specifications cannot be unique to an OS, otherwise they couldn't interoperate. Just be thankful that you can mount FAT32 file systems so that you can access cameras, USB thumb drives, etc. If you want to "protect" a FAT32 file system under a different OS, mount it on a directory that only root can access...
 
Old 01-03-2007, 02:05 PM   #12
MBA Whore
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Distribution: PCLOS 32 bit
Posts: 515

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Thanks everyone

Thanks everyone for your replies.....now I know....LOL
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swap partition...primary or extended|logical? mr.v. Linux - Newbie 1 07-06-2006 03:30 PM
Partition Problems: Bad primary partition 1: logical partitions overlap rovitotv Slackware 6 01-08-2006 06:55 PM
Mount primary prtition. And first logical drive in an Extended DOS partition zillah Solaris / OpenSolaris 5 01-08-2006 05:16 AM
Primary, Logical or Extended partition? mrpc_cambodia Linux - General 3 09-12-2004 11:10 PM
Moving from extended partition to primary partition joelbudgor Linux - General 5 05-26-2004 06:08 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration