Nah. Those who at which the original statement was aimed at wouldn't
listen anyway.
Ergo, the *nix community would remain better off, as is the case now :D
Cheers
Larry Seltzer wrote:
>>> Don't run Windows, morons.
>
> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
> comm
--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> I have to concur with this. I say "have to" because I'd really like
> to disagree, but all available evidence suggests that Chris' assessment
> is spot-on.
I do that once a year just to throw everybody off.
> Dammit, could you be less depressingly
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:02:14PM -0800, ch...@blask.org wrote:
> My guess is that the rate of discovery for existing
> infections/compromises is meager, at best. Whatever number you could
> find I would inherently assume is at best half as bad as the situation
> really is. Most people are not e
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> We're getting off-track here, but your experience is, at best, many
> years out of date.
Maybe. Or maybe several years ahead. I suppose we'll see.
Look, I'm *well* aware of the myriad issues involved here, and I am
by no means su
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Non-rhetorical question:
> What do we think the infection discovery rate is, and do we
> think it has increased or decreased in recent years?
More important than discovering infectious agents is discovering *infections
themselves* (which may be what
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM, wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
>
>> Stuff on Windows is attacked because its popular.
>> That's really all.
>
> I don't believe any system is "secure" if you can't continue to prove it from
> moment to moment and I care a lot less about intr
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Stuff on Windows is attacked because its popular.
> That's really all.
I don't believe any system is "secure" if you can't continue to prove it from
moment to moment and I care a lot less about intrinsic weaknesses if you can
see when they are explo
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:51:25PM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
>> >> Don't run Windows, morons.
>>
>> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
>> community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This would do
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> And equally of course, this will never happen, because it
> would require actual thinking and innovation rather than mere
.ranting.righteous.justification.snip.
All of the responses to the initial question (and, in fact, the initial
question) speak
Oh, no doubt. But they will find it considerably more difficult to go
up against people like Cox and de Raadt, who actually fix problems in a
timely manner, rather than denying them in press releases and quietly
releasing broken patches weeks or months or years later.
We're getting off-track here
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:51:25PM -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >> Don't run Windows, morons.
>
> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
> community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This would do it.
Oh, no doubt. But they will find it considerably more
Don't run Windows, morons.
> From the "What The Simpsons Taught Me About Cybersecurity"
> department, one of my favorite episodes is where somebody explains to
> Homer Simpson that people put tennis balls on the tips of their car
> antennas so they can find their cars in a crowded parking lot.
Larry don't ya know that gadi isn't intimate with anyone
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
___
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
4, 2009 11:26 PM
To: 'rick wesson'
Cc: 'funsec'
Subject: RE: [funsec] whitehouse cyber strategy review
Hey, maybe they'll hire Gadi. Several years ago the governor of New
Jersey (my state) hired his Israeli gay lover as a security advisor. The
guy had a marketing degre
.com
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
-Original Message-
From: Larry Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:23 PM
To: rick wesson
Cc: funsec
Subject: RE: [funsec] whitehouse cyber strategy review
People take jobs like that in government all the time, like super-rich
lawyers.
r, PC Magazine
larry_selt...@ziffdavis.com
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
-Original Message-
From: rick wesson [mailto:r...@support-intelligence.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:16 PM
To: Larry Seltzer
Cc: funsec
Subject: Re: [funsec] whitehouse cyber strategy review
Who wants the
--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >> Don't run Windows, morons.
>
> Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for
> the malware
> community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This
> would do it.
>From the "What The Simpsons Taught Me About Cybersecurity" department
Who wants the job? The pay is like 120K year, anyone worth their salt
just won't go for it. also the 2 year no lobing after you quit. Your not
going to get the best candidates...
-rick
Larry Seltzer wrote:
>> Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document just b/s of
>> more cooperat
>> Don't run Windows, morons.
Most of us have wondered for years what it would take for the malware
community to pay attention to non-Windows platforms. This would do it.
Larry Seltzer
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larry_selt...@ziffdavis.com
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
___
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 08:13:03PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document just b/s of
> more cooperation yet again?
Most disappointingly, it is. The entrenched interests in various
branches of government are a major obstacle to any attempt to improv
> Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document just b/s of
> more cooperation yet again?
I for one am reassured and inspired. The Bush administration was
incapable of making so attractive a document. What was it supposed to be
about again?
In a recent CircleID
(http://www.circleid.c
--- On Sat, 11/14/09, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document just b/s of
> more cooperation yet again?
I'm not sure what level of specificity you might be expecting in such a
document. If this said "and everyone will use WPA2 Enterprise" I'd be much
mor
ovember 2009 18:13
> To: funsec
> Subject: [funsec] whitehouse cyber strategy review
>
> Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document
> just b/s of more cooperation yet again?
>
> For the bored, or those that want to learn how to write
> vauge, but pretty
Is it me or is the new Whitehouse cyber security document just b/s of
more cooperation yet again?
For the bored, or those that want to learn how to write vauge, but pretty:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf
Gadi.
___
24 matches
Mail list logo
