I just checked my firewall (I don't really remember when I restarted my laptop last time, but it was certainly not today) and it still shows a total of attacks = 0. In fact I have never seen it show anything else than 0. I haven't touched anything of the firewall, no settings done, everything is let through, as I understand it. The OS/dist is Linux/Ubuntu 7.04.
When I had Windows (98, 2000 and XP), there were attacks several times each minute. Can the difference really be that big if the only thing that matters is how popular an operating system is? Than I can see two explanations: 1. I am the only one in the world using Linux 2. My Firewall lies to me. 3. Ok, I said two explanations, so I won't bother you with a third one. Johnny Rosenberg P.S. Will someone please try to attack me so I can verify that the firewall at least does something? D.S. 2007/8/11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Friday 10 August 2007 04:11:06 Harold Fuchs wrote: > > On 31/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 31 July 2007 15:36:48 Harold Fuchs wrote: > > > > It is moot as to whether the reason for this is because > > > > Mac/Linux are more secure or because Windows is more common > > > > and therefore more likely to yield the results an attacker > > > > wants. Both theories probably carry weight. > > > > > > This is totally wrong. Any Unix based operating system is by > > > default out of the box more secure than the most hardened > > > install of Microsoft. > > > > > > Microsoft is like your house; only the exterior points of entry > > > are secured but once someone enters the house they have access > > > to the entire house. This is because most people run Windows in > > > an administrator mode because it is more convenient and a pita > > > to get to the admin mode if you are not already there. > > > > > > Any Unix OS runs in a secure non-admin mode. Your house would > > > need to have all points of entry including the interior secured > > > so, even if someone got in, they would still have to go through > > > the same process to get to the next part of the house or > > > system. For the authorized person; moving into admin mode while > > > in user mode is very easy to do in a Unix OS. > > > > > > The argument about Windows being more widely used is just > > > Microsoft's way of trying to down play the superior security of > > > a Unix OS. Linux and MAC OSs are a Unix based OS. Also the Unix > > > platform is the most dominate platform used for servers and > > > those servers do not have a problem with viruses or worms. > > > Unauthorized entry into a Unix OS is not nearly as easy as it > > > is with a Microsoft OS. Be careful not to spread Microsoft FUD. > > > > > > -- > > > http://24.197.142.167/ See the Openoffice.org FAQ > > > Microsoft users go to http://www.pclinuxos.com for a great user > > > friendly Linux experience! > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > >------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > There is genuine and widespread debate i.e. it's moot about > > whether the popularity of the OS automatically leads to a > > corresponding popularity of attacks. Most serious players think > > it's true and that it adversely affects Windows. This seems to be > > confirmed by the rise in attacks on Apple systems as they sell > > more Macs. > > > > During both 2006 and 2007 FreeBSD issued one security bulletin, > > most with *several* patches, per month. During 2007 Apple has > > issued 26 security bulletins. > > > > It's not only the OS. For example, Java - supposedly designed > > from the ground up to be secure - has had security problems that > > affect *any* OS it runs on; see for example > > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2007/jw-07-sunpatch.html > >?fsrc=rss-index. Firefox 2.x has had more than 30 security > > patches. > > > > There is little doubt that Windows is intrinsically less secure > > than *nix and, therefore than modern Mac systems. I personally am > > convinced that the very design of Windows is fundamentally and > > irredeemably flawed. However, to say that Mac and *nix systems > > are intrinsically *secure* is just muddle headed and spreads > > whatever is the opposite of FUD - CAC (Credulity, Arrogance and > > Complacency)? > > You say Windows is flawed (and it is) but use it anyway. You do not > use Unix/Linux or Mac but try to convince yourself and others that > they are not secure when you have no clue. What is wrong with this > picture? > > The point of my response to your non-sense the first time was to > make sure people did not think that it did not matter which OS is > used when it comes to security issues because you were wrong the > first time and this time as well and will be every time you post > this kind of non-sense. > > -- > http://24.197.142.167/ See the Openoffice.org FAQ > Microsoft users go to http://www.pclinuxos.com for a great user > friendly Linux experience! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
