Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows
From: Terry Milnes (tez_at_interface.on.ca)
Date: 11/03/03
- Previous message: Jimi Thompson: "Bill Gate's Claims"
- In reply to: Lucas Holt: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Next in thread: L. Adrian Griffis: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Reply: L. Adrian Griffis: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Reply: Ryan B. Lynch: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 11:29:25 -0500 To: Lucas Holt <luke@foolishgames.com>
Lucas Holt wrote:
> If Microsoft has such secure software, then why do these "worms" exploit
> only Microsoft products. Sure one can argue that Microsoft is number
> one and therefore it would make sense to exploit windows on that basis
> to hit a larger target. By now I would think someone would attack linux
> or Mac OS X just to prove it can be done. The only linux worms i am
> aware of only attacked apache. (there could be more) Of course on a
> non windows system, a virus has less access unless its executed as root.
Thats simple, these worms are designed to exploit the most commonly used
OS's, used by for the most part, people who are toatally ignorant of how
their systems work.
The *nix systems have been targetted, there are many exploits out there
for these types of systems. However it takes a much larger effort to
automate such an attack on *nix platforms than it does on the MS
platforms. The average user of a *nix (exclude the MAC) OS is more
aware of his system than those who use the MS driven systems.
As the popularity of linux and Mac OS X grows I am sure we will see an
infusion of "worm" type activity designed for these platforms, partially
due to the method software is distributed, when we strive to make it
easier for the average joe to use/install etc. we make it more
susceptible....
Terry
> Microsoft supporters need to realize that they don't care about
> security, just making money. Why do you have to buy Outlook 2003 to get
> security patches? Why did microsoft discontinue outlook express without
> providing a tool to remove it from users systems? Why would bill gates
> attack his greatest competitors? ( GNU/Linux and Apple)
>
> I think all of these questions can be easily answered. if you can't
> answer them, try an OS besides windows.
>
> I think the real problem with microsoft right now is they are IBM in
> 1980. Little people snuck up and bit them.. the real question is who
> will be microsoft in the next round. Bill gates is in trouble and he
> knows it.
>
> Lucas Holt
>
>
>
- Previous message: Jimi Thompson: "Bill Gate's Claims"
- In reply to: Lucas Holt: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Next in thread: L. Adrian Griffis: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Reply: L. Adrian Griffis: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Reply: Ryan B. Lynch: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
