RE: Ten least secure programs

From: Dan Bartley (bartleyd_at_corp.netcarrier.com)
Date: 07/04/03

  • Next message: Tim Greer: "Re: Ten least secure programs" 
    Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:58:03 -0400
To: "Tim Greer" <chatmaster@charter.net>, <security-basics@securityfocus.com>

     
    One more time. I'll admit to being sucked in one last time. :-( This
    really will be my last word on this thread, label that however makes you
    feel better about it.

    I can only assume you live in a bubble of self involvement. You outright
    said in earlier posts that you have no security issues, that you have no
    need for security tools, that you have fixed or selected software where
    no security issues exist and do not require security prevention. Perhaps
    you want to clarify what you really meant as opposed to what you
    actually said? Which part of you have solved all security issues did I
    misinterpret?

    I am not interested in bashing Linux or any other OS users. I am against
    arrogant admins or users (of any OS) who feel they have all the answers
    and dispense advice based on that assumption. Unfortunately for the
    growth potential of a promising OS, *some* of the more vocal Linux users
    tend to be very immature, arrogant and closed to learning new things.
    Sadly, this has caused Linux (most flavors) to remain a struggling
    platform. I would like to see it be otherwise, it has tremendous
    potential for specific areas.

    What planet are you from? You did not know that IBM and HP make some of
    the most widely used and secure UNIX flavors? Or are you just grasping
    for a bashing implement by pretending to be a master of semantics?

    Hey! I've got an idea (based on your apparent logic pattern). It might
    rain somewhere one day. Just never go outside, then you don't need a
    raincoat.

    You clearly limit the options of whoever it is you are consulting for
    with that kind of approach. I do not recommend anyone here take that
    lead.

    Yes, the original subject of this thread. Take note that I have made
    suggestions, repeatedly, in every post geared directly toward that
    original subject. Listing 10 specific applications to avoid is
    ridiculous and unproductive. It is an exercise in both futility and
    arrogance. Instead I have tried to make suggestions on an attitude to
    approach these matters with, so options are not limited and forward
    thinking is embraced. It concerns me to think that young and creative
    minds here would get advice that, in essence, says, "This is the only
    way to do it, any other way and you are wrong"

    I do not recommend that any security or IT people take the attitude that
    they have it all figured out. I recommend that they keep their options
    open, consider the possibilities, be proactive, and provide solutions
    that allow a business to function in today's interactive world in a way
    the *business* wants. I always thought the correct work ethic was to
    provide the service to the customer, not force the customer to do it "my
    way or the highway" They are, after all, paying me to provide what they
    ask for and need. I hope my creativity does not become so stagnant that
    I ever have to say, "There is only way to do any of this"

    And to help you out Mr. Greer. "Duh! That is obvious!" Yes it is, isn't
    it? Bears being said anyway, particularly for the those in an early
    learning curve. Too bad that approach seems to be outside your thinking
    sphere.

    As for the poster who asked for things to be cited regarding the
    compromise and flaw rankings, it has been in the media, in trade
    reports, on web sites, in security newsletters. I read these things, I
    research and keep current. Google it yourself, don't ask me to do all
    the work for you. Please don't take the old and tired approach that if
    it is negative about MS, IBM or whoever it is completely true, but if it
    is negative about Linux, its Linux bashing and lies. Linux deserves
    better than that. That attitude didn't work for MS or IBM, it isn't
    going to work for Linux either.

    Also, if anyone is going to try to make swipes on semantics or someone's
    interpretation of statements, don't turn around and do it yourself in
    the same sentence. That gives such an air of desperation and closed
    mindedness.

    Perhaps wrongly, I assumed the security basics list was all encompassing
    where it relates to security basics. I did not view it as belonging to a
    select few based on their personal view of what constitutes a computer
    expert and what they view as the only correct options. I don't know,
    seems to me the world is just a little more diverse than that.

    Best Regards,

    Dan Bartley

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Tim Greer [mailto:chatmaster@charter.net]
    Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 14:32
    To: Dan Bartley; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Re: Ten least secure programs

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dan Bartley" <bartleyd@corp.netcarrier.com>
    To: <security-basics@securityfocus.com>
    Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 6:25 PM
    Subject: RE: Ten least secure programs

    > Your comments appeared to have a clear slant to them. They also were
    > contrary to the statistics.

    No, only someone that's hard up to bash Linux users would assume this.
    Nothing was contrary to what _you_ claim. This is getting nowhere.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top analysts!
    The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic Quadrant,
    while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare.
         
    Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote access in
    about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing maintenance.
              
    Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Next message: Tim Greer: "Re: Ten least secure programs"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: January 15 is Personal Firewall Day, he lp the cause
      ... supply of patches (Windows NT4/95/98) these systems should go offline ... Security is always a trade-off. ... This is how Linux and other ... Apache virtually owns the market with more than 60%. ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • SecurityFocus Linux Newsletter #39
      ... Subject: SecurityFocus Linux Newsletter #39 ... Need to keep track of the latest vulnerability information? ... vulnerabilities for both security product vendors and corporate security ... NEW PRODUCTS FOR LINUX PLATFORMS ...
      (Focus-Linux)
    • Re: Ten least secure programs
      ... Subject: Ten least secure programs ... only someone that's hard up to bash Linux users would assume this. ... > corrected virtually all current and yet to be discovered security issues ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • RE: Linux hacked
      ... Subject: Linux hacked ... After you boot up into the OS running from CD, ... >> First let me say I'm a security novice. ... >> been unsuccessful in getting root back. ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • Re: Community responsibility and abuse (2): the case of top-
      ... Without ANY evidence of ANY security problems you try ... PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF ANY ... evidence that Linux is anywhere near as insecure as windows. ... Still no "spacific evidence that Linux is anywhere near as insecure as ...
      (alt.linux)