One of MS's problems is that there ARE architectural problems which
they can't fix without breaking compatibility. The scripting
capabilities of Outlook for instance have been used as a _selling_
point..and that is its greatest weakness. Hard to take that one back
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wildman Lead Consultant, divine, Inc
jim@rossberry.com jim.wildman@divine.com
www.rossberry.com www.divine.com
(972)560-7356
All opinions expressed are mine and not my employer's.
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Wyly Wade wrote:
> ***Disclaimer***
> I am not a windows advocate
> ***end Disclaimer***
>
> Bugs and exploiting of bugs is a fact of software. Linux and Windows
> share the amount and level of bugs pretty equally. The reason you do not
> hear about the Linux exploits nearly as much is only because it does not
> have the level of media attention that MS does. I would offer that most
> of the exploits in windows are primarily harmless or just DOS attacks
> which can be fixed architecturally. Most of your Linux bugs seem to
> offer more visibility for a remote user to exploit more than the common
> widows bug. I would be leery jumping up and down about the quality of
> security in Linux because while it has different strengths than windows
> it also has some extreme weaknesses as well.
>
> Just my .02$
>
> Wyly Wade
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William T. Wright [mailto:t.wright1@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:56 PM
> To: slug@nks.net
> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Insight on Code Red II
>
>
> Code Red is just another example of the poor security in the MS-Windows
> OS,
> right up there with the "Back Orifice" hack, MS-Outlook, and that silly
> cartoon paperclip. If anything, these virus/worm/trojan-horse scares
> should
> make it pretty obvious that MS-Windows is vulnerable to all kinds of
> malicious code, and it won't get any better.
>
> One of the reasons I migrated off of MS-Windows was to have something
> with
> some degree of immunity. Granted, there are viruses out there that go
> after
> Linux/Unix boxes, but it seems target-#1-with-a-bullet is
> MS-Windows.Some of
> it has to do with Windows' monopoly position on the desktop, but a big
> chunk
> of it has to be its vulnerability. Criminals prey on the weak. All those
>
> *.vbs scripts that exploit MS-Outlook's weaknesses don't work on KMail,
> and I
> have no "explorer.exe" to overwrite or corrupt. It little like trying to
>
> infect a dog with the common cold.
>
> These scares look like a good opportunity to politely show off the
> built-in
> security features of Linux and Unix. Those "honey pot" Samba servers can
> make
> for a convincing argument. Microsoft rushed a patch out to correct this
> problem, another band-aide. One of these days, a smark cracker is going
> to
> develop a Superflu that's going to really raise havoc for MS-Windows
> users,
> something like Jim Beamguard's "Virtual Havoc" piece in last Sunday's
> Tribune, only worse. It's time to stop wearing that big MS-Windows
> bullseye.
> Linux offers a very attractive alternative.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:52:58 EDT