Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?
From: Dave Horsfall (dave_at_horsfall.org)
Date: 03/17/04
- Previous message: Andrew Aris: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] [Bug Proofing Microsoft.com with Internet Explorer ** Part"
- In reply to: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Next in thread: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Reply: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Full Disclosure List <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:47:22 +1100 (EST)
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Daniele Muscetta wrote:
> ....I know, you roughly have some 26 Megabytes of patches to be installed
> POST-SP4 and POST IE60SP1 on W2K.
>
> Is any other OS any better lately ?
OpenBSD. FreeBSD. NetBSD. BSD/OS. See the pattern?
I had a BSD/OS box exposed to the Net without a firewall for *years*;
it was quite funny watching Penguin/OS exploits against it.
-- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Loyal Unix user since 1975 Booted from Spamtools for dissing the moderator: www.horsfall.org/levine.mail _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Andrew Aris: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] [Bug Proofing Microsoft.com with Internet Explorer ** Part"
- In reply to: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Next in thread: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Reply: Daniele Muscetta: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|