StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So says this article.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19996.html

That study is flawed. Read the posts below. Also closed source software is likely to have even more bugs, but since no one goes over the code, no one knows about it.

Anything is more secure than Windows expect Voyager which is less secure than a 7-11 like to see a slicer play with Voyager

I wonder if MS paid for the report.

Uraniun235 wrote:So says this article.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19996.html

Sounds like they're on a crusade against UNIX.

Open Software by Defintion is less sequre as the code base its built on is freely aviable for Hackers/Crackers to Study while Closed Systems tend to be more secure by defintion due to the fact the code is not easly aviable nor easy to study


That said, Defintion rarley makes it into Pratice

Mr Bean wrote:Open Software by Defintion is less sequre as the code base its built on is freely aviable for Hackers/Crackers to Study while Closed Systems tend to be more secure by defintion due to the fact the code is not easly aviable nor easy to study


That said, Defintion rarley makes it into Pratice

What if forgets to mention is that most hackers use Open Source software, and generally contribute to such projects, fixing security holes that they find.

What if forgets to mention is that most hackers use Open Source software, and generally contribute to such projects, fixing security holes that they find

Gee look somone who forgot to read my post even though they quoted it

As I said, Defintion aka Theroy rarley makes it into Practive, you seem to be under the delisuion that I think it does

Try reading a bit more carefuly next time

The people who wrote the study are idiots. Five points:

1. They are weighing Microsoft products (OS, office suite) against all open source products from all corners (OS, many office suites, countless utilities and applications, etc).
2. Typical speed of response from Microsoft vs open-source community is much different.
3. Microsoft sometimes refuses to fix certain vulnerabilities at all, deciding unilaterally that they're not important enough to fix (or better yet, they fix them only in newer versions, and then tell people with older versions to buy the new versions or else).
4. Microsoft vulnerabilities are typically discovered reactively, after they have already been taken advantage of, and widespread damage has already occurred. Large numbers of open-source vulnerabilities are discovered proactively, during code audits.
5. They are basing their conclusions upon rates of advisory releases rather than rates of successful hacks, intrusions, and website defacements (in effect, ignoring end-results).

Every few months, another M$-funded operation puts out the same kind of moronic "news report". And the rebuttals are always the same.

Darth Wong wrote:The people who wrote the study are idiots.
Microsoft sometimes refuses to fix certain vulnerabilities at all, deciding unilaterally that they're not important enough to fix (or better yet, they fix them only in newer versions, and then tell people with older versions to buy the new versions or else).

If you want an example of that, Microsoft claimed to have fixed the MIME header vulnerability of Outlook Express in version 6.0. However, my dad, running Outlook 6 on Windows 98, recently got infected with a virus that spreads using that bug (his only mistake was clicking on the message in the first place; he didn't run anything on purpose).

So much for their bug "fixes."

Crayz9000 wrote:(his only mistake was clicking on the message in the first place; he didn't run anything on purpose).

Correction. His only mistake was using a Microsoft email client with known security holes large enough to hide the Death Star. Get him to use something--anything--else before the next round of Outlook viruses get loose.

KMail rules.

Darth Wong wrote:KMail rules.

I've been using AOL since the mid 90s, and I've never actually had a virus do anything nasty to my computer. The fact that microsoft web products are apparently more vulnerable than AOL tells you something.

Enlightenment wrote:Correction. His only mistake was using a Microsoft email client with known security holes large enough to hide the Death Star. Get him to use something--anything--else before the next round of Outlook viruses get loose.

He's running Mozilla on Linux now

The only reason he was using Outlook was because he wanted to access Hotmail without having to use their clumsy web interface. He used another mail client for everything else.

Crayz9000 wrote:

Enlightenment wrote:Correction. His only mistake was using a Microsoft email client with known security holes large enough to hide the Death Star. Get him to use something--anything--else before the next round of Outlook viruses get loose.

He's running Mozilla on Linux now

The only reason he was using Outlook was because he wanted to access Hotmail without having to use their clumsy web interface. He used another mail client for everything else.

W00000000000T! Hmm got any Free Linux sites? I'm smelling Dualboot in this computer's future...

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:W00000000000T! Hmm got any Free Linux sites? I'm smelling Dualboot in this computer's future...

http://www.linux-mandrake.com

Mandrake 9 is out, and includes Mozilla 1.1 (I think). It also has KDE3, OpenOffice 1.0.1, and a bunch of other stuff.

Don't worry about the business with joining the Mandrake Club, just click the "Already a member or planning on becoming one" link to go to the mirror page.

RedHat 8.0 is also out, though from what I've heard from RedHat fans it might be better to get 7.3.