Op Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:48:35 +0100, schreef Roy Schestowitz:
> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Saturday 30 September 2006 18:38 \__
>
>> On Saturday 30 September 2006 18:30 Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We all know the drill: Whenever we point out that the security of Windows
>>> has an appalling track record, with hundreds of thousands of viruses,
>>> countless critical (and slowly patched) flaws in IE, and a whole slew of
>>> other nigh disastrous problems, the Windows shills come up with the one
>>> Magic Excuse: "That's because it's the Biggest Target, you stoopid!"
>>>
>>> According to them, Linux, BSD or MacOS are just as vulnerable as Windows
...
>>> Well then, this can lead to only one conclusion, and only one solution -
>>> and it's so obvious that even the biggest Microsoft apologist can't but
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Microsoft's market share must be cut down drastically, by forced
>>> government measures if need be.
>> Exactly:-)
>>
>> I go back to the question I posed earlier - "Why did so many Irish people
>> suffer and die in the potato famine(s) of the 19th century?"
> Diversifiaction is a natural choice, but I can't say that I agree with
> Richard (yes, I know it was sarcasm).
I don't agree with me either - if you catch my drift ;-)
It's just that I realized that the "Biggest Target" paradigm is actually
the absolutely stupidest defence possible to explain the malware crisis,
as it implies that *any* OS with MS' market share would suffer the exact
same problems; therefore, the only possible remedy is a reduced market
share, so that there wouldn't be one Biggest Target any more, but a number
of smaller targets of roughly equal size.
Had they conceded that yes, Windows security really sucks, then they could
have come up with the defence that with a better version of Windows,
things could be solved, without the need to cut down altogether (although
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one either).
There *is*, however, general agreement that a more diversified market is
very desirable, not just for alleviating the malware problem, but also for
a host of other reasons, some of which I mentioned.
> Governments increasingly choose Open Source because they /do/ appreciate
> its merits and inherent security. After all, it is not Linux whose
> majority of code needs to be scraped and (re)written from scratch.
> Moreover, companies whose interests lie in the insecurities of Windows,
> seem to sidle with logic, e.g.:
[snip example]
Well, these people should know :-)
> Lastly:
>
> The short life and hard times of a Linux virus
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | For a Linux binary virus to infect executables, those executables must
> | be writable by the user activating the virus. That is not likely to be
> | the case. Chances are, the programs are owned by root and the user is
> | running from a non-privileged account. Further, the less experienced
> | the user, the lower the likelihood that he actually owns any
> | executable programs. Therefore, the users who are the least savvy
> | about such hazards are also the ones with the least fertile home
> | directories for viruses.
> |
> | [...]
> `----
>
> http://librenix.com/?inode=21
Not to mention the fact that one can mount /home noexec. End of problem
altogether, unless the user can be tricked into su'ing to root and
installing malware. But that's a rather less likely scenario. (NO, Erik!
Down Boy! DOWN!)
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
http://www.linetec.nl/
|
|
