Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] clever virus trick

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> What critera are we going by to determine Windows is "shitty"?
Slow, bloated, unstable, insecure, etc. Everything that makes software 
bad applies to Windows. I've done things with Windows that almost nobody 
knows how to do (One issue a nice guy at Microsoft even investigated for 
me and let me know the secret methods needed.) and at every turn it's 
been a piece of crap platform. All evidence is pointing to Vista being 
just as bad.
>     don't
>     let files in user directories be executable, and don't write apps,
>     that
>     work with unknown files, in low level languages that tend to cause
>     bugs
>     that can make apps be tricked into doing bad things such as executing
>     non-executable files.
>
>
> This sort of reminds me of installing and configuring sendmail on Linux.
Sendmail is an application and is not Linux, is much more secure than it 
once was, has plenty of alternatives, and doesn't need to be ran by most 
users. I would probably agree if you wanted to state that a mail server, 
for the vast majority of users, does not need to be written in a low 
level language. I'd probably go to the extreme and say that all classic 
mail protocols and programs need to be killed and 
reinvented/reimplemented from the ground up because email is such a 
burning hole of wrongness all around. Mail servers in general are one of 
the most painful bits of software to configure and it's largely due to 
the incredible age of email and the numerous bad decisions made in the 
design of email protocols and all the weird and crappy half-assed fixed 
attempted over the years to fix those design problems.
>     For Linux systems it's amazing how much more secure things are if you
>     just don't let users execute anything they themselves have saved. Most
>     software on Linux systems, especially for novice users, is
>     delivered in
>     the form of known packages from trusted sources. That takes care
>     of most
>     problems especially if the system is setup to automatically
>     install new
>     packages that have security fixes.
>
>     No system is secure, but some are much more secure than others. 
>
>
>
> I would much rather run a hardened windows system maintained by an 
> experienced administrator  than a  Linux system running every service 
> as root maintained by someone who likes to "put fires out".
There is no such thing as a hardened Windows system. If it's a Windows 
system and it's exposed to a network, external discs, or troublesome 
users it can and will be turned to toast at some point especially if it 
has anything to make it a target.

Linux is more secure by design of the OS and most apps although I think 
most Linux distros have their heads so far up their own asses that they 
make almost no attempt to make the systems really secure by default. IMO 
there isn't one good Linux distro on the market today but even being as 
crappy as they are the majority of Linux distros are still more secure 
in a default install than a default install of Windows. With a good 
admin on both systems the Linux system will win hands down on security.

And yes, I did hear about the big X exploit that was reported yesterday. 
One in six years that is fixed already isn't to bad and luckily Linux 
runs well without a GUI installed so secure systems like most servers 
don't even need it installed.

Still, I think more FOSS developers need to learn to develop in higher 
level languages. Doing so will make our software easier to maintain and 
secure. Way to much is done is C. C'mon people, you can still be an 
alpha geek while making the wise decision not to write everything in low 
level languages.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion