On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Guru <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you share why you think so (for me to understand better)
The article is FUD 1. attempting to make the kernel team look indifferent/incompetent on security matters. 2. "Towelroot" Android exploit is whose fault? - this types of exploits are all due to manufacturers and their proprietary methods. 3. Compares Linux security to car manufacturers in the 1960s wilfully avoiding seat belts and other safety mechanisms. 4. ashleymadison.com was broken because of the website-design and NOT the kernel 5. harps endlessly on securing data - stupid approach to security. 6. clueless about SELinux Linux kernel is based on a reasonable risk model - the real problems are in binary blobs. We know Linux is not as secure as the Openbsd kernel, but the article wants to convey to the general reader that Linux distros are insecure, kernel devels don't care and that M$windows is secure. Best A. Mani Prof(Miss) A. Mani CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogspot.in/ http://about.me/logicamani sip:[email protected] _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
