Michael O'Donnell writes:
|> I love the sentiment, but here's hoping we're all careful
|> not to describe Linux as "immune" since to do so only
|> does us all a disservice. Linux is NOT immune; it
|> just seems that way (for now) because we're much more
|> secure from the start, we (so far) haven't introduced a
|> bunch of *VPL's to assist the Bad Guys like M$ has, and
|> we're very well positioned (because we're OSS) to do
|> something about it anytime somebody does find an exploit.
I think the following article sums it up well:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1816987.html
It's plain as day that Microsoft has "the wrong security posture".
Microsoft is trying to cover their exposure by saying that they are
just providing features that users want, and then they say it's the
end-users's fault for activating these features. Wonderful MS
logic. And they wonder why Thomas Penfield Jackson took them out
to the woodshed?
Bottom line: there's no way in the world MS was unaware of the damage
these automatically-enabled "features" facilitate, and they should be
held liable for these damages.
--
Dave Cherkus ------- UniMaster, Inc. ------ Contract Software Development
Specialties: UNIX Internals/Kernel TCP/IP Alpha Clusters Performance ISDN
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ When you lose, don't loose the lesson
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
