This article may be vaguely interesting for the one fact it contains, but the reasoning it demonstrates is quite deeply flawed.

Mr. Mullen is arguing from the premise that "Everything-on by default causes a system to be insecure". He then proceeds to argue that simply because the antecedent is now false in the case of win2003, the consequent, that windows is an insecure system is also false.

Clearly this is not a logically valid argument, in fact it is a classic error in reasoning. Windows may no longer install everything and the kitchen sink but this in no way implies it isn't begging to be hacked on the first boot. Having sane installation defaults does not make a system secure; it prevents the system from being obviously and fatally insecure.

While we should thank Mullen for his factoid, this article does little but convince me that his reasoning is hampered by extra-rational prejudices.


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/157/19617#19617