It actually costs someone far more to follow the advice
than the benefit that person should expect to get.
*coughairportsecuritycough*
--DTVZ
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Ben Eisenbraun b...@klatsch.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 01:01:02PM -0400, Tom Buskey wrote:
This is way
On 03/24/2010 01:48 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
For now. Right now, the attackers go after Windows, because 90% of
the users run Windows. (With a higher percentage of easily-duped
users.)
Have you heard that the Windows malware game now involves various
packages each trying to disable and
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
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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile)
g...@freephile.com 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett greg.rundl...@gmail.com 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
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
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett greg.rundl...@gmail.com 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
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
Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org 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
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 mad...@li.org 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu 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
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,
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
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 project,
Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu writes:
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:02 PM, G Rundlett greg.rundl...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com 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,
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!)
19 matches
Mail list logo
