, 2006-10-27
Scott Granneman takes a look at some big surprises in Microsoft's Vista EULA that limit what security professionals and others can do with the forthcoming operating system.
Expand all |
Post comment
Surpises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-27
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-27
Peter (9 replies)
Peter (9 replies)
Re: Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-27
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-29
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-30
Ant-UK (2 replies)
Ant-UK (2 replies)
Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-30
murdamcloud (1 replies)
murdamcloud (1 replies)
Re: Surprises Inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
2006-10-31
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Is the limitation on reporting .Net Benchmarks a violation of free speech?
2006-11-06
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Is the limitation on reporting .Net Benchmarks a violation of free speech?
2006-12-04
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Re: Is the limitation on reporting .Net Benchmarks a violation of free speech?
2007-04-11
Anonymous
Anonymous

http://www.viruslist.com/en/find?words=linux&search_mode=vir
us&search=Search"
You just strengthened my point. I looked at your list of "viruses" and although I didn't look through the entire list I didn't see a single "virus" in what I did look through. "Back Door" is not a virus. "Root Kit" is not a virus. "Worm" is not a virus. Like I said, Linux has "vulnerabilities" just like every operating system on earth but I have yet to see a true "virus" in the wild, or even hear of one for that matter.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/420/34034#34034