, 2003-10-02
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
Expand all |
Post comment
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-02
Anonymous (8 replies)
Anonymous (8 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Ken H (1 replies)
Ken H (1 replies)
Linux will not succeed in replacing Windows at work because..
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux vs. Windows Viruses
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Why this article SUCKS
2003-10-03
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Think OpenBSD, Linux and cia are much more SECURE !
2003-10-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Think, yet another troll.
2003-10-06
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-05
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
AlphaParticle (1 replies)
mail client exploit + local root exploit = just as bad as if you were root anyway.
2003-10-07
Anonymous
Anonymous
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns
2003-10-07
Pamela (2 replies)
Pamela (2 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-07
Anymouse (1 replies)
Anymouse (1 replies)
EDITOR: Please be more aware of sexist pronouns?
2003-10-08
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
leavetheworldabetterplacethanyoufoundit (1 replies)
Scott's Right, Microsofties. Deal With It.
2003-10-07
Penguinisto (2 replies)
Penguinisto (2 replies)
If Linux is so secure.....
2003-10-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2003-10-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-03-30
My head is spinning (1 replies)
My head is spinning (1 replies)
Re: Re: Thor Larholm has written a counterattack to this article...
2006-06-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

1) The premise that Linux is more secure because a user has to go through more gyrations to execute the attachment. Once users are taught how to do this, then they will go right on spreading the virus just like in the MS world. You think they'll really not look at those stupid Christmas animations just because you make them save them and chmod them first? Once they figure out how to do it they'll scratch down the CHMOD +X myfile right next to that post-it on the monitor that has their password on it.
2) Outlook does not just "execute" attachments by itself. Those were due to since-patched vulnerabilities. You think KMail and Mozilla don't have them??? Hmm - were you around for the OpenSSL and OpenSSH vulnerabilities of the past few weeks? Have you seen the number of Linux vulnerabilities in the Bugtraq database this year? Are you willing to bet your life that dangerous bugs aren't lurking in those packages too? Stay tuned....
3) Windows does not force people to run as Administrator but it IS necessary to install most applications - JUST LIKE LINUX. Quite contrary to your rant, when you create new users in Windows XP the default level of permissions is "Standard User", not administrator. Only the initial account is an Administrator - same as root in Linux. There is a RUNAS command in XP - same as SU in Linux. Don't blame XP just because most people don't use it the way you would like. Give them Linux boxes and they'll all be running as root.
That I can guarantee. The problem is not Windows. The problem is...well...people. It's their computer and they'll choose convenience over security every time. Your rant is little more than elitist ramblings. Give them a different OS and they'll still abuse it to get things done.
What we need to do is add security AND convenience. If you reply on artifical hurdles to give you the illusion of security then you will always lose.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/188/22766#22766