I've always hated the "It's the most widely used, so it's the most widely
targeted and most widely compromised" argument. Most of the time I see it
expoused by clueless journalists and Windows apologists making excuses for
all the security issues Windows has had. But, there is a small (small!)
ge
Ironically (or coincidentally?), this very day we made an offer on a house
in Amherst for the very reason on the subject line of this e-mail. While
US News & World Report rates Souhegan as second in the state for (public)
high schools, behind Hollis, we found that the general atmosphere and
direct
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Charron wrote:
> Linux is NOT more secure then Windows. People RUNNING Linux are
> *generally* more security conscious then a person running Windows.
>
> --
> -- Thomas
>
Apache (OK, not Linux, but illustrative). Back a number of years ago,
IIS was rout
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" writes:
>
> Two weeks ago I went to Souhegan High School in Amherst to vote, and
> while there I looked up their computer technical person (they are mostly
> a windows shop, but also have MACs) and offered to do a presentation to
> the students and faculty on FOSS and free cult
Hi,
Two weeks ago I went to Souhegan High School in Amherst to vote, and
while there I looked up their computer technical person (they are mostly
a windows shop, but also have MACs) and offered to do a presentation to
the students and faculty on FOSS and free culture.
They asked their "community
Derek Atkins writes:
>
> Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett wrote:
> > > So, it seems that you're saying: "Don't switch to Linux because
> > > even though it will prevent you from getting 99% of the malware
> > > out there today, someday it could be targete
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 15:18 -0400, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> However, if/when Linux gains significant market share, the Linux
> binary/shell script/.deb/autopackage/whatever that gets downloaded
> will run just fine. In other words, this is only an effective
> countermeasure *as long as Linux rema
>But... only somewhat: "Though a program be but three lines long,
>someday it will have to be maintained."
"the realization came over me with full force that a good part of the
remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own
programs." - Maurice Wilkes, head of the EDSAC pro
>I'm not missing the point. All holes are not created equal.
While I might agree that there are some holes that are larger than
others, and some systems where there are more holes than others, I apply
the same logic to computer systems that I apply to using a condom to
block STDsany size or n
On Wed, March 24, 2010 5:05 pm, Thomas Charron wrote:
> Linux is NOT more secure then Windows. People RUNNING Linux are
> *generally* more security conscious then a person running Windows.
I will take partial issue with this. It's my humble and considered
opinion that open source is, generally,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Given a standard-configuration fully-updated Windows box and compare it
> to a standard-configuration fully-updated Linux box.. The windows
> machine has significantly more holes in it during standard use.
>
>
That is false assumption whic
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" writes:
> Derek,
>
> You are still missing the point:
>
>>Given a standard-configuration fully-updated Windows box and compare it
>>to a standard-configuration fully-updated Linux box.. The windows
>>machine has significantly more holes in it during standard use.
>
> You only
Derek,
You are still missing the point:
>Given a standard-configuration fully-updated Windows box and compare it
>to a standard-configuration fully-updated Linux box.. The windows
>machine has significantly more holes in it during standard use.
You only need one hole.
md
_
"Jon 'maddog' Hall" writes:
> Derek,
>
>>but I think Linux does start as a more
>>secure platform that Windows, so you've already got a leg up.
>
> When it comes to security, the only one that has a leg up is that one
> hacker that is going to break in, and (when you are not looking) is
> going t
Derek,
>but I think Linux does start as a more
>secure platform that Windows, so you've already got a leg up.
When it comes to security, the only one that has a leg up is that one
hacker that is going to break in, and (when you are not looking) is
going to piss on you.
md
_
Benjamin Scott writes:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett wrote:
>> So, it seems that you're saying: "Don't switch to Linux because even though
>> it will prevent you from getting 99% of the malware out there today, someday
>> it could be targeted and vulnerable".
>
> No. What I'm
I agree with Ben:
o yes, right now there are fewer viruses for Linux and Mac
o those people that depend on that fact will sooner or later regret that
dependency
Only constant application of patches, training and diligence will help
stave off malware. And most users will not do the first, will no
Below are a working pair of scripts, should anyone find them useful.
I would have attached, rather than included them, but if the MV webmail
interface lets me attach files, I haven't figured out how.
These work for my current application.
sxon lives on the PATH on my machine with the X server (u
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett wrote:
> So, it seems that you're saying: "Don't switch to Linux because even though
> it will prevent you from getting 99% of the malware out there today, someday
> it could be targeted and vulnerable".
No. What I'm saying is: A false sense of secur
Greg Rundlett
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile)
> wrote:
> > Of course, you can just run Linux and you're system won't be vulnerable
> to
> > most if not all such 'scareware'.
>
> For now. Right now, the att
> When I go to a site that noscript blocks, I might want to allow it. When
> noscript is allowed, it reloads. Usually this lets me go on my way. Some
> sites will set some kind of cookie and not allow me to reload. Coupon
> sites, surveys, polls, webkins are typical. The only way to clear some
Tom Buskey writes:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> >
> > Last I looked only the iPod and a handful of Creative devices supported
> > this, but I'd like to find something that did (or that I could hack to
> > do it). I'm trying to avoid buying both Apple and Creative
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile)
wrote:
> Of course, you can just run Linux and you're system won't be vulnerable to
> most if not all such 'scareware'.
For now. Right now, the attackers go after Windows, because 90% of
the users run Windows. (With a higher percenta
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) <
g...@freephile.com> wrote:
> Apparently the ad networks of Fox, Google, and Yahoo have been distributing
> ads which contain malicious javascript. This means that all you have to do
> is surf the web to have your system infected with m
Apparently the ad networks of Fox, Google, and Yahoo have been distributing
ads which contain malicious javascript. This means that all you have to do
is surf the web to have your system infected with malware... wait, that
isn't really new. It's just a sad reminder of how easy it is for "regular
> Googling for "X without ssh" or "X Forwarding without ssh" brings up
> thousands of helpful tutorials on X Forwarding using SSH :)
>
> Here's an alternative suggestion, not as good as xon, but relatively simple:
>
>
http://superuser.com/questions/49240/get-remote-x-display-working-in-linux-wit
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 06:13 PM, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> > This is not possible with any SSH implementation that I am familiar
> > with.
>
> Ah, found it:
>
> http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
>
> For some reason I thought it was avai
27 matches
Mail list logo
