Re: Users slam Microsoft Security Analyser

From: Peter (list@easynix.com)
Date: 04/16/02


From: "Peter" <list@easynix.com>
To: "Stuart Fox (DSL AK)" <StuartF@datacom.co.nz>, <focus-ms@securityfocus.com>, "John Wienand" <JWienand@bna.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:14:43 -0400

Yes, i know one...it is OpenBSD (and not FreeBSD).
Since 4 Years without remote hole in the default installation.
You see, it is possible to release an OS which is "secure"
by default...
The big question just is why MS can not release a secure OS?
Instead of developing the Walt Disney GUI they better should
spend the money for the security.
Peter

> >
> > On the other hand, we should be happy that MS doesn't
> > produce cars. Otherwise we could hear: "The door locks
> > don't work right now and you can not close the windows.
> > Also you can not use the park break......but it is the best
> > car ever made......"
> >
> > What happen if you install a new M$ OS? The first
> > thing you do is downloading patches and fixes for all
> > the remote security holes. It really would be a joke
> > if we had to pay for the M$ screw ups.
>
> So extending this a bit further, we should probably all be running
FreeBSD,
> as it's the only OS I know of that is secure by default. Would you
put a
> default RedHat installation live on the net with no patches?
>
> Let me know when someone writes an OS that doesn't require patching
out of
> the box.
>