On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote: > Skip Evans wrote: > > Nathan Rixham wrote: > >>> > >> yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the > >> next; no > >> one OS is more insecure than any other > >> > > > > Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove it. Read the first URL > > I posted that documents the creation of Linux viruses and the > > experiments conducted to see how they propagate compared to Windows > > viruses. > > > > > think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0 > vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's > have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equally insecure; because > they are all insecure. > > the only way to change the balance is to make or find an OS with 0 > vunerabilities; thus making it secure and no longer equal. > > my worlds boolean. You've just given the description for whether a machine has an exploit or not. Not whether said exploit can realistically be executed. By your definition there is no such thing as security since as time approaches infinity all passwords can be found via brute force and thus all systems are exploitable. That's not a reasonable answer given the time and resources necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
