>> I know someone who until recently (~1yr ago?) was running Windows >> 3.1. For all its lack of inherent security, it was substantially >> stronger against today's carpet-bombed attacks than lots of more >> modern stuff, simply because most malware wouldn't run on it at all. > Facinating. Think of how secure DOS and CP/M are by this standard.
Indeed. Anything not part of a majority (or at least substantial minority) monoculture will be. It's one reason why I run a relatively fringe OS on a relatively fringe CPU architecture for my most exposed machines. (A relatively minor reason - my own aesthetic sense is a stronger one - but still.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
