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 between Windows and others? I don't think so. It also makes more economical sense for spyware merchants to target say Internet Explorer than Mozilla Firefox. Not because of the market share of IE (which is declining) but because of the amount of time it would take for Microsoft to patch (or not patch) the security hole. Whereas a hole in Mozilla Firefox would take priority and be discussed in the open. And the security patch would be pushed out in a more timely fashion as opposed to the 2nd Tuesday of the month... Again, if MS decides to put the resources into patching the hole in the first place. That's not a case of market share. That's the closed and proprietary development model. ~ Julian --- Tim Newsham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 the > attacks > don't even rely on any software vulnerability but on the poor > judgement > and bad practices of end users. These same problems exist in > the unix > population. The software for all aspects of a the malware > would be > substantially similar across all existing popular platforms. > The only > major differentiator is the return on investment. Writing > attacks for > windows makes more economical sense for attackers. > > Tim Newsham > http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ > _______________________________________________ > LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list > http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau >
