On Monday 19 June 2006 05:54, jtd wrote: > some Ammo for M$ FUD. Security is not about user idiocity. It Is > about a sane architecture which will require substantial (complex) > user intervention to make it less secure.
My point being user idiocity can bring down any system - be it Windows or Linux. The weakest link in security are humans. They can bring down a system with their foolishness. > Really? What do you haveto do to get let say a Sarge (Kubuntu?) box > rootkitable. What do you have to do to get a Win XP box to the same > state. Nothing at all in the 2nd case. > Secondly exploiting a vulnerability in a GNU distro requires > substantial ability, whereas in the case of M$ it requires very > little. Look at my above point. I am not at all talking about how easy / difficult it is to crack into Linux or Windows. Once a box is cracked its cracked. How easy or difficult it was doesnt matter... > Actually u would be excused if they were paying you. You might have > got a bonus for the abv ammo ;-). M$ could run an ad M$ is secure > except for idiototic users. And since no user think he idiot security > problem solveeed. You are basically trying to convey that Linux is uncrackable even when its being used by the stupidest user. But what I am conveying is that a Windoze box _can_ be secured well in the hands of a good sysadmin. Look, these two statements have very different meanings. -- Dinesh A. Joshi -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
