Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)
From: Dazz (cashdj_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/05/05
- Next message: Colin B.: "Re: Call for Windows IE 7 Boycott..."
- Previous message: Winged: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- In reply to: Jbob: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- Next in thread: Moe Trin: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:17:30 +1000
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:45:26 -0500, "Jbob" <nobody@SpamCox.net> wrote:
>"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:nfwIe.51419$t43.38702@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140780/windows-2000-wide-open
>>
>> Time for Linux/BSD everyone...
>>
>> Michael
>
>You say that like Linux has no flaws(for a better word). If I'm not
>mistaken Linux has had more security patches over the last 6 months than MS
>has. I actually don't see most of this stuff as flaws but more as exploits.
>Crackers in a dark hole somewhere can crack anything if they hit it enough.
>Even the precious Linux Kernel.
>
>FWIW, I wish I new Linux better! :-) I'm trying though.
Firstly, a lot of people assume that because an exploit is found in a
service or software installed on Linux, such as Apache, PHP or
Sendmail etc, that it is Linux that is as fault.
This is false.
When it comes to Linux (or other *nix based sysems), a sysadmin or
user will generally have the option of installing software/services as
they see fit.
In most cases, *you* have the choice as to what you want to install or
offer on a *nix based system.
A good sysadmin will install the minimal amount to have a system
operational.
In the case of an M$ based server, you don't always have this option
as M$ try to "incorporate" what they see as important
features/services - whether you like them or not.
Ever tried uninstalling Internet Explorer from Windows 2000, XP or
Windows 2003 Server?
Regardless of the OS, a system is only as secure as the person who
configured it that way - and even then, you can't guarantee security.
Dazz
- Next message: Colin B.: "Re: Call for Windows IE 7 Boycott..."
- Previous message: Winged: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- In reply to: Jbob: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- Next in thread: Moe Trin: "Re: New IP based security hole in Windows 2000 (yet again)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|