On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote:
> Not at all, and please don?t tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that
> people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to
> imply in any way that
> open source is better is a misnomer.
>
> I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I don?t
> belong
> to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot.
>
> I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing
> list would
> use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much
the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for
tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is
great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for
the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my
answer.
Valeri
>
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote:
>>> So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
>>>
>>> all I need to say is?BASH , OpenSSL?..
>>>
>>
>> Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer
>> security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the
>> vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source
>> M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example
>> UNIX.
>> Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD
>> project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and
>> as
>> sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just
>> will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor
>> and
>> simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had
>> majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't
>> vulnerable)
>> had less trouble...
>>
>> I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not
>> consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck
>> my
>> brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I
>> prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't
>> mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that
>> it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever
>> person
>> who said "security only can be in open source".
>>
>> Valeri
>>
>>> I am sure there are more.
>>>
>>> But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to
>>> back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
>>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev
>>> <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
>>>>> Really, you have some URL?s to back up the paranoia ?
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows
>>>> is
>>>> and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and
>>>> there
>>>> is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open
>>>> source".
>>>> There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they
>>>> are
>>>> based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last
>>>> time
>>>> I
>>>> cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux
>>>> kernel,
>>>> there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free
>>>> to
>>>> imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
>>>>
>>>> Valeri
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning <centos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on
>>>>>>>>> "enumerate
>>>>>>>>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a
>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA
>>>>>> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA
>>>>>> authorities.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Valeri Galtsev
>>>> Sr System Administrator
>>>> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
>>>> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
>>>> University of Chicago
>>>> Phone: 773-702-4247
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CentOS mailing list
>>>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CentOS mailing list
>>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>>
>>
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Valeri Galtsev
>> Sr System Administrator
>> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
>> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
>> University of Chicago
>> Phone: 773-702-4247
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
