__/ [ BearItAll ] on Friday 13 October 2006 11:49 \__
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>> _after_ they came out and played with each of them. "Anyway," I said,
>>>> "Maybe you ought to take a look at this 'Trend Micro' thing instead of
>>>> playing around with the toy Symantec crap. TM found nearly 450 trojans
>>>> that Symantec didn't notice across 4 different machines."
>>
>> This is the kind of Social Engineering we were discussing.
>>
>> Pop up a dialog telling someone how clever they are, report something
>> that the user want to hear eg "450 trojans" (yeah right), add a "click
>> here to continue being so clever" and *bang*, SW installed.
>>
>> Sounds to me like YOU infected the system. Well done.
>>
>> Ive worked on tens of large XP networks and none of them were ever
>> compromised in the way you are describing. Sounds like you have a shit
>> for brains sysadmin : and he would screw up a Linux system too.
>>
>> And don't give me that "Linux is impregnable" : there are thousands of
>> firms providing Linux network security consultancy.
>>
>> It might be MORE secure, but it will be open to attacks if and when it
>> makes a noticeable enough impact on the market share to make it worth the
>> criminals efforts to attack it.
>
> That isn't true.
>
> The majority of mainframe and backbone servers are still UNIX/Linux, which
> means that the data the criminals would like to get their hands on is
> mostly on UNIX/Linux, if they could crack it from outside they would do it
> because the prize makes the effort worth it.
>
> But what we are finding is that the spys are written for XP which will
> hopefully give them access to the data on the mainframe or UNIX server via
> user access.
>
> It is MS and XP that is our weakness, that is why I say that they should be
> forced to come to an acceptable level of security set by governments,
> simply because MS has ran out of time to sort it out themselves. Maybe the
> solution is to hand the security to a third party, given full access, with
> MS not being given any say in the matter.
Perspective: Microsoft security--no more second chances?
,----[ Excerpt ]
| CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says the software maker is running out
| of excuses for a history of poor security.
`----
,----[ Quote ]
| As if Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff didn't have enough on
| his plate.
|
| Not only has he had to deal with Katrina and Osama. Now he's also got to
| whip Steve Ballmer and the crew at Microsoft into shape. If past is
| prologue, that last task may be the most daunting of all.
`----
http://news.com.com/2010-1002_3-6104512.html?part=rss&tag=6104512&subj=news
|
|
