On January 30, 2004 09:10 pm, Peter Wu wrote: > 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.
< snip > > 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. you missed the point. windows programs are not designed with security in mind. they build features in that are inherently insecure (like the one mentioned above) and are therefore, by definition, less secure. the difference then is this: both o/s's have holes. but the linux ones get patched. not burried and/or intentionally not fixed in hopes that no one will notice: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7807 microsoft is not "working very hard" to do anything but keep its hold on the market. where are you getting this stuff? *and* even when comparing completely un-patched systems, the linux world still makes sense due to its mass diversity. even the kernels are different from computer to computer so the spread of any viri is far more difficult. filesystems, binary locations, availability of services -- all different. this by it's own nature leaves the linux world less of a breeding ground for problems like this. in closing ('cause i'm not posting to this thread again) - allowing people to physically break their systems is not a vulnurability. that's like saying that all cars are vulnerable because the drivers can be morons and drive them into walls. if you don't know how to drive, don't blame honda when you wreck your car. - linux is more secure to mass virus attacks because of it's diversified nature. - windows is more vulnerable to mass attacks because (a) it's built with features, and not security in mind, (b) built by a company that doesn't care about making good software, only software that sells and holds marketshare, and (c) every windows box is the same, and therefore a perfect breeding ground for worms and viri. -- the revolution will not be right back after a message about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people. you will not have to worry about a dove in your bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl. the revolution will not go better with coke. the revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath. the revolution will put you in the driver's seat. the revolution will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised. the revolution will be no re-run brothers; the revolution will be live. - gil scott heron -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
