"Robert C Wittig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > I'm an Open Source kind of person, so I may be prejudiced, but I think > Open Source code is a lot more secure than anything MS can produce, > because any developer who wants to, can read the source code, and > contribute their perspective to the debugging effort. That's a lot of > very sharp people contributing expertise to the project, over an > extended period of time.
I'm also an advocate of the Open Source alternatives, but we're dreaming if we start thinking being better than Microsoft equates to being secure. Even beloved OpenSSH (from the OpenBSD folks) has been subject to recent exploits. It STILL takes paying attention and keeping updated to be anything remotely "secure" these days! > I have recently begun using FreeBSD 4.8 secure server, and it has been > around for a while, and is a cracker's nightmare, if it is being run > by a knowledgeable sysadmin... which I am *not*... yet.<g> I know it's always a different ballgame when you're running a server that HAS to allow others in (i.e. a public web or shell server). Fortunately, at home, we don't have to do that, so we can fix a lot of problems by simply shutting the appropriate doors and (*ahem*) Windows. :) > Funny thing is, I have no intention of turning off my Windows 98se > box... it works great. In the next few months, I will hopefully have > my entire rag-tag network of retro-boxes and operating systems fully > networked together behind a gateway/router/firewall box... maybe an > old 386 or something. A PERFECT use for an "aging" box. Let it serve as the protector for the rest. Much easier to concentrate on one place for security rather than many! - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
