No, you're reading it right. I was being sarcastic. =P Sorry for not making that more clear. My fault!
Warm regards, Jordan Jon Austin wrote: >Am I misreading what you said? Strange piece of logic there. I would >think the fact that the source code not being available would make it >more difficult to find security problems. > >It would easier to spot an overflow of some type in the code, rather >than having to effectively "brute force" an overflow by pushing lots >of data around and then analyzing the crash dump of >application/process to find out what went wrong and how to exploit it. > >Is there a flip-side to this where closed source makes it easier to >find vulnerabilities? > >Regards, > >Jon > >On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:51:57 -0800, Jordan Michaels ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>However, it's also important to note here that MS is huge target for >>hackers. So they deserve more sympathy (pity?) when it comes to security >>vulnerabilities then the alternatives. Their code isn't available for >>the world to evaluate, and thus it's easier to find security problems >>with their software. >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:194626 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
