*SNIP*
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> Hi Janina,
>
> Yeah, well, hmmm, that's something I have often wondered... Microsoft is a
> very closed, proprietary operating platform, yet it is riddled with
> security holes. Linux and related operating platforms, with their open
> source model are much more stable and more secure. In some ways, this
> would seem to defy logic. If the code is widely available, it would seem
> easier to create exploits. Why is this not the case?
>
I would suggest here that it has been done.
Not for the purposes of destroying people's operating systems, but, for
the purposes of guarding against such things.
I believe that we the linux community pride ourselves on security and
wouldn't knowingly or purposely release a piece of code that has been
generated for the purposes of doing damage to another's system.
I've seen no end of exploits for windows and I know most of them.
e.g. if one was to type con/con at a command prompt one would end up with
a bluescreen o'death.
this is because of a dos device bug in microsoft's code that causes a page
fault by typing that command.
However, untill we rise up as one and all tell microsoft where to stick
their insecure collender they call windows, we'll be stuck with
proprietory junk.
just my 2C worth.
--
Shaun Oliver
In a world without fences
and walls who needs Windows and Gates?
EMAIL: shaun_oliver@optusnet.com.au
ICQ: 76958435