Re: The importance of IVs
Date: 27 Aug 2005 18:55:42 -0700
> On 27 Aug 2005 18:26:37 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >It isn't that easy. Some applications need VM [which disabling swap
> >removes to a certain extent] to run.
> Applications need memory -- plain and simple.
> Whether that memory is physical or virtual is transparent and
> irrelevant to the application. As long as there's enough available
> memory, that's all the application cares about.
Not every application uses memory as you ignorantly think. Ever use a
memory map? Didn't think so...
Wait till you grow up and be a big boy and play with MULTIPLE PROCESSES
The memory manager in windows is just plain incompetent written when
Windows 3.1 was popular and security was a DISTANT thought.
> >The real problem is Windows. No "security conscience" user would
> >bother using windows aside from those who think "$VENDOR Anti Virus
> >makes me more secure!".
> More nonsense.
> My home Windows machine is more secure than any non-Windows machine
> you'd find out there. That's because if you know what you're doing,
> you can secure Windows to the point where you can't touch it short of
> having physical access to the machine, in which case any machine is
> equally insecure, regardless of the operating system.
Or you can just install Linux, not run as root, keep the packages up to
date and ignore all these "ooh, another virus going around" warnings.
I mean a home user probably won't be running apache, sshd or other
external services. To them a proper install of GNU/Linux will be
perfectly secure. The worse thing they can do is screw up their home
account [and not root] so that takes a very short moment to restore
from a backup [which they should be doing in windows anyways].
Like right now I can do
rm -rf /home/tom
then unpack from my NIGHTLY BACKUP and be back up in all of about 145
seconds or so...
So even if someone did write a virus for x86_64 it would have MINIMAL
> Linux is no more secure than Windows, just like Mac OS is no more
> secure, just like [insert whatever here] is no more secure. The only
> reason Windows is subject to more attacks -- and therefore perceived
> to be less secure -- is because it's being used on 95% of all
> computers in the world.
That's a loaded statement. Most windows installs run the user as
Administrator which means they can screw up the box trivially. A
proper Linux install will have them create their own user which is
totally separate from root.
> If Linux was being used on 95% of all computers in the world, then 95%
> of all attacks would be directed at Linux, in which case it would be
> just as "insecure" as Windows.
Not really since Linux [and Unix and BSD and ...] was written with
security in mind. Hence the multiple users, properly isolated
processes, ulimits, etc...
Windows was written with $$$ and "fun to use" in mind since apparently
everyone is stupid and MUST be amused at all stages of their day...
To me running "esync" isn't "fun" but it isn't tedious .... Fun is
playing my PS2 or hanging with the buddies. Fun isn't clicking on
shiny "windowsupdate" icons ... that isn't fun, if that is fun for you
you need some professional help.