Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the internet
you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets... Botnets run on windows
because they are the majority population, not because they are inherently
easier to write botnets for.
Tim Newsham
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Tim Newsham wrote:
Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the
internet you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets...
Botnets run on windows because they are the majority population,
not because they are inherently easier to write
Tim Newsham wrote:
Ok, this is just silly. If you ban windows machines from the internet
you'd just get a bunch of linux and osx botnets... Botnets run on
windows because they are the majority population, not because they are
inherently easier to write botnets for.
Linux has some
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to populate
with the software that creates botnets. They're an open infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
vulnerabilities in *BSD, linux, OS X and windows. Many of the attacks
don't even
Tim Newsham wrote:
Its not that simple. Windows boxes are a heckuva lot easier to
populate with the software that creates botnets. They're an open
infection vector.
I don't agree at all. There are sufficient server and client
vulnerabilities in *BSD, linux, OS X and windows. Many of
So given that argument on market share as correlating to a need
and return on investment, in a hypothetical situation where
there is a 50% Windows market share and the remaining 50% is a
mix of *nix, Linux and OS X.
Would there be an equal amount of malware/spyware/viruses/etc..
devided equally
