On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 06:01:26PM -0500, gabriel wrote: > On January 30, 2004 05:24 pm, Peter Wu wrote: > > That is the problem. Many Windows users are told in the email how to open > > and run the executable virus. Sometimes, the viral emails disguise > > themselves as if they were sent from Microsoft Support Team. > > an o/s can't protect against stupidity. that said, it doesn't have to > encourage it either. outlook was coded so badly that it has in some cases > allowed the execution of attached files just by reading the email. i don't > know of any linux client that does this. so ok, you can't protect against > stupidity, but you can make it hard to do something stupid.
No, this is not stupidity but lack of computer knowledge.
According to Merriam-Webster, the English word, stupid, has the following
meanings:
1. slow of mind
2. dulled in feeling or sensation
3. marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting
4. lacking interest or point
If one does not know how to do something, can he or she be considered stupid?
Anyway, you prove my idea that human beings play a more important role
when we talk about securing a computer system.
> > Well, as I said in another post, on Windows, you can choose to run under a
> > user without root privilege. Also, I know there are many new Linux users
> > that like to use root instead of a normal account to do something
> > dangerous. They do not like to su to root when perform some potential
> > dangerous jobs.
>
> i'd just write them off as darwinism. again, you can't protect your box if
> you're an idiot.
Again, idiot is not an appropriate word for such case.
You cannot protect yourself from diseases. Therefore, once you get some
problems, you go to see doctors. Does this mean you are an idiot?
> the common myth is that all viruses propogate through windows networks because
> no one applies the patches. but the real issue is the inherrent insecurity
> in micros~1 apps. they're built for features first, and security a distant
> third (after marketshare). is linux more secure? yes. more idiotproof? to
> a point. but given the diversity of linuxes and the bazaar-style
> construction, the software produced is more stable and secure as a result.
Microsoft Windows is a commercial product that implements the features
demanded by customers. Of course, this cannot be an excuse for creating
insecure code. Anyway, Microsoft is working very hard to fix those
security holes in its applications, including Windows, Office.
Some days ago, Linux's kernel got some vulnerability that promptly was
patched by a new version. Also, I also keep receiving some security alert
from Gentoo Security to ask us either upgrade to the latest version or
patch the existing applications.
Can you explain to me why Linux still has vulnerabilities while it is
designed secure by default?
What would be the difference between an unpatched Linux network and an
unpatched Windows network?
Again, you prove my idea that the administration of the
network/application is more important than the network/application
itself.
--
,,,
(o o) Peter Wu
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- Powered by GNU/Linux 2.4.22
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
