Am Donnerstag, 23. August 2007 10:41 schrieb Joachim Schrod: > But, as you can read from the other answers to my post, these > results are obvioulsy dreamed by me and my customers pay for > nothing, because "every linux/unix/*ix box on the planet is not > owned by hackers and spammers while so many possible exploits > exist", as Ken Jennings put it so succinctly. No, no, no. "Every > ... is not owned" -- guys, now I've got it: There are *NO* owned > Linux boxes out there, none at all. You read it here, so it's true. > I should close down the part of my company that's testing and > securing linux/unix systems for my customers; it's not necessary. > > Well, by public acclamation, I seem to be wrong, and rest my case.
It's true what he says, we've to face the fact, we're not invincible (yup,
even if some of us like to to propagate). The fact that Linux/Unix structure
is different to windows, doesn't make it unattackable, some things might be
more difficult, right. But a desktop system is always vulnerable, user wants
to have this comfort and pay the bill - same as in windows.
Something different might be on the side of the Server systems, where almost
no user actions are taking part, it's rather difficult to exploit them(if
maintained correctly).
Greetings
Michael (yeah, I know I' making myself unpopular :P but face it, we wanted
everyone to believe it, that Linux is unvulnerable("No Viruses", "Very
secure", etc.) we gotta be honest with ourself and remember, we're not
unvulnerable - this becomes especially important when we introduce new
members! Letting them believe they can do everything with Linux and being
safe of every form of attack is wrong! We gotta educate and strong their
sense for a 'good' Internet behaviour.)
pgpOBqf9LrhMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
