On Jan 9, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
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.
Maybe the proper way to say it, is the OS is as secure as the idiot
who runs it? :) For someone who knows what they are doing... I
believe you can lock down windows relatively easy after you go
through the 50 pop-ups it takes to move an icon off the desktop :)
Although as far as virii goes... You really don't hear anything and
any virus' for *Nix based systems, including Apple's OS X... Not that
it can't be done... I just think it's harder :)
--
Jason Pruim
japruim@xxxxxxxxxx
616.399.2355
