[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Knocking Microsoft
- To: "James F. Wilkus" <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Knocking Microsoft
- From: Denis Dimick <denis@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:13:25 -0800 (PST)
Linux/Unix just has to be more sercure then Windows..;)
Also as for lame admins.. Yes there are some when it comes to unix/Linux..
However, when the base OS is more secure then Windows it's not as painful
to the rest of us..
-Denis
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, James F. Wilkus wrote:
>
> > and now they try to make it secure. UNIX was made to be secure, and
> > now they are adding colours.
>
> This is not true. UNIX was not made to be secure. Any UNIX security
> history book will tell you that.
>
> Just because you run UNIX does not make you immune to attacks. Linux,
> with it's world domination kick, is recruiting more and more windows
> admins to it's ranks. You think that these same windows, now linux,
> admins are going to do a better job at securing their systems? These
> same admins who can not apply patches before the next major worm
> strikes?
>
> apt-get update is easy, so is clicking on windows update...
>
> I think people are doing a disservice by claiming that linux is
> something it is not, or more accurately, generalizing all UNIX's to be
> secure.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html