Re: Trojan Horses Popular To The Malicious Hackers

From: Alun Jones (alun@texis.com)
Date: 11/22/02 

From: alun@texis.com (Alun Jones)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:36:40 GMT

In article <arj3ho$omn$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, roberson@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:
>I must disagree to some extent about there being "no technology
>solution" for this. The text-only mail client that I use (BSD Mail)
>is completely immune to all such attacks, as is the MIME message
>processor I use when someone sends me a document.

You are _certain_ that there is zero possibility of buffer overflow or other
data-driven attack in both of those programs? Have you analysed every source
line to be certain of this? If not, then you cannot say that your software is
"completely immune".

>Furthermore,
>when I do read email via a browser, I am completely immune to any
>of the MS Windows infection vectors: I'm not running Windows, and
>I'm not even running on an Intel architecture.

So you're capable of being infected by malware that target your processor,
your OS, and your applications, but immune to attacks against other
processors, other OSs, and other applications? Isn't that just another form
of "security through obscurity"? "I'm safe because I use a less popular OS /
application / processor" seems to assume that the only possible attack is a
random one based on popularity. Let's assume someone wants to target you, and
anyone who chose the same processor / OS / application as you. How safe are
you?

You've saved yourself from most of the more random style of attack. Bully for
you. Do not confuse yourself into thinking that this makes you completely
safe.

>The fact that my system is immune from those types of Windows
>infections implies that Windows could be changed in such a way as
>to also be immune from such things.

Yes, by the simple fact of being _not_ Windows. Your point completely escapes
me. You say that your system is safe because it isn't Windows, and if Windows
was made to be not Windows, then it would be safe. What you really mean is
"if the world switched to my operating system, then they'd all be as safe as
me from Windows-based attacks". Well, duh. Of course, then, with the whole
world using platform X, the new target for random attacks would be platform X.

Alun.
~~~~

[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.] 

-- 
Texas Imperial Software   | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place   | http://www.wftpd.com or email alun@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419  | VISA/MC accepted.  NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for XP/2000/NT.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Trojan Horses Popular To The Malicious Hackers
    ... "completely immune". ... >of the MS Windows infection vectors: ... your OS, and your applications, but immune to attacks against other ... "I'm safe because I use a less popular OS / ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Trojan Horses Popular To The Malicious Hackers
    ... "completely immune". ... >of the MS Windows infection vectors: ... your OS, and your applications, but immune to attacks against other ... "I'm safe because I use a less popular OS / ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [opensuse] OpenSuse 11
    ... downsizing this huge effort by saying "It's safe anyway". ... in Linux than Windows. ... which either don't exist or are much harder to exploit in Linux. ... suffer successful attacks all too frequently. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Trojan Horses Popular To The Malicious Hackers
    ... You say that your system is safe because it isn't Windows, ... > me from Windows-based attacks". ... > world using platform X, the new target for random attacks would be platform X. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Trojan Horses Popular To The Malicious Hackers
    ... You say that your system is safe because it isn't Windows, ... > me from Windows-based attacks". ... > world using platform X, the new target for random attacks would be platform X. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
Loading