Re: And another one just for fun!

From: Owen Rees (orees_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/13/03 

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:46:37 +0100

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:58:19 +0200, Jim Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote
in <mju3mvg8cij0ngp62ots0edfu3eb8b3k5t@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:58:26 +0100, Rev Adrian Kennard <'@o.gg> wrote:
>
>>Owen Rees wrote:
>>>...
>>> The problem now is the same as it was then, people are not prepared to
>>> pay in advance for a system that is resistant to attack.
>>
>>It is interesting that I don't suffer from virus attacks because I use
>>an operating system which is free!
>>
>>It seems people are prepared to pay, in advance, to systems that allow
>>them to be attacked...

Many people are apparently willing to pay for superficial features, and
the ability to run various applications. The more interesting comparison
would be between MS Windows and MS Windows with extra security (i.e.
where the only difference is the security) or Linux and Linux with extra
security. The former comparison is not possible since Microsoft do not
make an enhanced security variant of Windows (presumably they see no
market for it). The latter comparison is possible to some extent, of
which more below.
>
>There is the cost of setting up a free operating system, plus you
>can be assured that if everyone used it, the virii would come.

There are a number of operating systems where you do not have to make an
explicit payment in order to use them. As Jim has said, there are other
costs involved, and the most commonly deployed versions of free OSes
might suffer from various attacks if they were seen as an interesting
target by those inclined to do such things.

For both Linux and FreeBSD, there are more advanced security mechanisms
available, some of which have their roots in work done in the 1970s.
Very few people are willing to invest even the time it takes to deploy
features created by others; a smaller number invest significant effort
in developing those features. How many people run systems which have a
built-in integrity model? Virus writers would have to be a whole lot
smarter to get round even a fairly simple integrity system. 

-- 
Owen Rees - opinions expressed here are mine; for a full disclaimer
visit <http://homepages.tesco.net/~owen.rees/index.html#disclaimer>
for e-mail use "owen.rees at tesco.net" instead of the From address

Relevant Pages

  • [Full-Disclosure] w32.frethem.k@mm and good reading
    ... Script kiddies deface websites. ... only obfuscating your own perception of security. ... >> vulnerabilities in a particular operating system or server software ... >> Imagine a custom operating system used by only a few servers, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • [Full-Disclosure] w32.frethem.k@mm and good reading
    ... Script kiddies deface websites. ... only obfuscating your own perception of security. ... >> vulnerabilities in a particular operating system or server software ... >> Imagine a custom operating system used by only a few servers, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Need advice about hacking and security
    ... and look at the Received-From: ... A trojan (from Trojan horse) is a seemingly innocuous ... > systems via various security holes. ... Windows Me is the operating system. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: And another one just for fun!
    ... >>It is interesting that I don't suffer from virus attacks because I use ... would be between MS Windows and MS Windows with extra security (i.e. ... >There is the cost of setting up a free operating system, ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: on the topic of stability
    ... >> software firewalls for evaluation without problems. ... >Yeah, true, no operating system is 100% secure by itself. ... >> internet apps designed with security in mind. ... >Win98se has almost no security built into the file system. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
Quantcast