media company
Omaha.com
402-898-2079
-Original Message-
From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:55 PM
To: Bassett, Mark
Cc: Paul Schmehl; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux (in)security (Was: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: No
Subject)
In some mail from
: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 5:55 PM
To: Bassett, Mark
Cc: Paul Schmehl; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux (in)security (Was: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: No
Subject)
In some mail from Bassett, Mark, sie said:
I think something we are also
there,
I'm one too ;) )
Mark Bassett
Network Administrator
World media company
Omaha.com
402-898-2079
-Original Message-
From: Paul Schmehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux (in)security (Was: Re: [Full-Disclosure
* Bassett, Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031024 12:37]:
I think something we are also forgetting is that statistically *nix
users are people who are computer geeks. Average joe #1 buys his pc
from Best buy pre-loaded with windows XP and has no clue how to install
it. Currently vendor pre-loaded
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Gary Flynn wrote:
[SNIP]
3) Microsoft's steadfast refusal to ship systems in a NO listening
ports configuration
by default. Cripe, now we've got anonymous, distributed file storage
on how many
Windows XP Shared Documents folders all over the Internet
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:00 PM -0600 Bruce Ediger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real questions go something like:
Source code for Unix viruses has been available for years, from sources
almost too numerous to mention. Why haven't Unix
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 11:18 pm, Paul Schmehl wrote:
snip
Malware follows
negligent users, *not* OSes.
Bingo!
Cheers,
/g
--
George Capehart
capegeo at opengroup dot org
PGP Key ID: 0x63F0F642 available on most public key servers
It is always possible to agglutenate multiple
Hi!
That brings up a good point. If this issue is not exploitable on *BSD
but on Linux due to a different implementation of memory handling,
doesn't that mean that Linux is generally less secure than *BSD just for
that reason? And if so, why haven't the Linux memory handling routines
been
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Peter Busser wrote:
Because Linux people in general seem to be more concerned about speed and
features than about security. For example, the only reason Linux Security
Modules (LSM) have been included in the kernel, is that they don't have a
performance impact on users
In some mail from Bruce Ediger, sie said:
The real questions go something like:
Source code for Unix viruses has been available for years, from sources
almost too numerous to mention. Why haven't Unix viruses become epidemic
the way that Windows viruses have?
How quickly we forget modern
Bruce Ediger wrote:
The real questions go something like:
Source code for Unix viruses has been available for years, from sources
almost too numerous to mention. Why haven't Unix viruses become epidemic
the way that Windows viruses have?
Not sure the source has anything to do with viruses. But
11 matches
Mail list logo
