Printable View
Pooh hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. The main reason Microsofts operating system gets all the coverage is because it is the market leader at this time. If windows died and Linux took over I am sure that we would have similar headlines.
Lipton Which goverment would shut down the page?
Leave it to pooh to come to Windows/XP's rescue ;). However, he's right. The exploit and the general amount of them can apply to most if not all OS's. Although I would much rather prefer a fully-patched *nix system to a fully-patched XP system any day. :D
I'm gonna write some code that delivers a short, sharp, electric shock to the (l)user. Then send email links to it, to every idiot where I work! This may help them to modify their idiotic habbits, then again...
Well I can dream Can't I?
The problem is that people are used to buying this crap. Software makers don't even care, they just put it out on the market-some of them don't even beta or test it anymore. If we demanded better software the makers would make better software,then we wouldn't have to worry about this.
**** comes from ****!
for the first part, he was referring to a specific article pooh.Quote:
Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
Wait, shouldn't the topic be:
Fully patched XP/Linux/UNIX/BeOS/Solaris/Sun/BSD/DOS? Still not safe
I mean, the exploit can apply to any OS known to man because it isn't an exploit based upon the OS, it's an exploit based upon the user. Windows virus, unix viris, BSD virus. I don't care what the OS is, it can still be exploitable by the user.
Which brings me to my next minirant about news and media:
Stop labeling windows exploits like this one as XP/Windows specific! It isn't true, and is just another scare tactic. Telling us that people clicking on malicious links in email makes the OS insecure makes as much sense as the owner of a bank throwing all the money out into the middle of the street.. and then saying that the bank itself isn't secure.
second >> in linux, itd be rather hard to click on a link to some website and be exploited, in most cases.
third >> The bank analogy, heh. The owner of the bank knows what he/she is doing therefore its not the same. Windows is so easily exploitable because its
a. owned by the richest man in the world
b. the most talked about thing in the world
c. the most used os by end users worldwide
hrm.. hrm.. hrm..
WINDOWS IS, HAS BEEN, and WILL ALWAYS BE INFERIOR TO LINUX BECAUSE IT IS BETTER THAN LINUX!
make sense? ill elaborate - windows, is more popular, thus is attacked more, exploited more, more virii blah blah. This makes linux superior to windows, meaning - people can use linux and not worry about clicking a link and getting bad stuff (most of the time - if not all ) simply because linux isn't targetted near as much.
how bout this for the future or something:
"Linux patched and still unsafe blah blah blah"
wait, won't happen.Quote:
A recent security vulnerability has been found in the linux kernel. users are now starting to accidentally be forced to login in as root, and then execute dangerous commands...
Yah, I agree er0k. If Linux was the market leader there would be more exploits for it than there are now. However, I believe that Linux is (and would be) less susceptible than windows for the reasons stated by er0k:Most users not running as root, etc.
Microsoft's rebuttal:
http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/se...le.php/3397851
I saw this on the frontpage. It's alreay been stated in this thread but figured I'd just post it anyway.
Personally I don't buy the numbers game, completely.
Lets narrow the market for instance to webservers. When attrition.org was keeping stats on defaced pages, IIS was #1, and apache was the most userd webserver. IIS had/has nimda, code red, code red II, and their variants (and these still are floating around today), apache doesn't. There was Scalper back in 2002, but it didn't do anything.
I'm not trying to be arrogant in thinking Linux doesn't have security problems, but MS products just seem to have issues beyond just being the most popular. It also doesn't help that MS itself has a bad atitude towards all this with their "its not a bug, but a feature" statements. Its dangerous for MS, its dangerous for their products, and most of all its dangerous for the common home computer user.
I read an article awhile ago stating that isn't bad programming coming out of MS, but bad design decisions that is affecting their product lines. If I can find the article I'll post the link.
PS: I just joined, and this is my first post, so please be gentle. :rolleyes:
This is kinda funny it may be off topic though.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?...xworldexpo.com
Umm.. question..
How does a Linux user get a root kit installed on their system with out their knowledge, when the box is fully updated or patched, with a correctly setup firewall?
please note this is in defence of an earlier post.. and is not a pro/anti MS or pro/anti *nix post.. just a thought.. the strongest chain is as strong as it's weakest link.. You know when a door has been forced, but if the criminal is let in..
IS Win Xp SP2 super secure and will never be broken..NO.. am I suprised and should you be? No .. does this nean we should stay alert?..yes .. should be look at alternitives? Always.. regardless of the OS we use and prefer at the moment.. If you are not looking at the others in a balanced manor.. then you can not honestly evaluate you current favourite..
Cheers