On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Mike yearwood wrote:
> Here's something I've often wondered. If Feudal Lord A ;) is regularly
> attacked by Feudal Lord B, Lord A reacts by building up his
> fortifications. Lord C, knowing that A and B are at odds, does
> nothing and his people remain in thatch huts.
>
> If Microsoft is Lord A and the hackers are Lord B. What makes the Mac
> or any other OS more fortified than Microsoft - a company regularly
> under attack?
If that premise were to be accurate, let's clarify a few things.
Linux and Mac built their fortresses out of steel-reinforced
concrete, with a series of multiple hurdles to cross before you can
even get close enough to attack. Microsoft's fortress, however, was
designed with several doorways that are not only unlocked, they are
wide-open and hidden from anyone inside the fortress, so that
attackers can enter without ever being detected. What's worse, the
number of such entrances is unknown.
Sure, if you set things up according to your fantasy world, your
conclusion would be correct. However, if you honestly believe that
the security models of Windows to *nix systems is analogous to a
highly-fortified fortress vs. thatched huts, then the only reasonable
choice for you is to stay with Windows, and to trust all of your
security needs to Microsoft.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
